politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Dave has made a mistake on the TV debates
Comments
-
Fair point if they're complaining about exclusion. It's entire plausible that they will have the third highest number of MP's and determine who is in power in the UK.calum said:The SNP are wading in with their take on this:
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments
The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?
I think Ofcom have cocked up here. If you're going to reflect an increasingly fractured political landscape by including UKIP ( fair enough per se ) it seems odd to exclude the Greens and the SNP too.0 -
Indeed, Mr. kle4. A party of Scotland deserves a place in Scottish debates, not the UK's.0
-
It is not for Ed and Nick to agree. It is for OFCOM to agree as they can only decide which parties qualify. If they now do a volte-face , their credibility goes down.MaxPB said:
The most likely is option four and the debates go ahead with the Greens participating. The onus is now on Ed and Nick to agree.ashley said:
1) Cameron does a "no more NHS top-down reorgnisation" and does a shameless about-face on his word about the Greens.SquareRoot said:Too many instant judgements being made, Dave has supposedly thought it out, lets see how it pans out.
2) Cameron is empty chaired.
Or
3) There's some messy compromise where who is to blame for the mess gets lost in the mess.
Cameron is clearly gambling on the latter, calculating that it would be less bad for him than actually defending his record in public.0 -
Sure it is.AlbionTilIDie said:
No, it isn't an escape if he had planned it.corporeal said:
Well, it's a face saving escape either way, since he's put himself in a bit of a hole today. He may have planned an escape but it seems a long shot.AlbionTilIDie said:
"Face-saving escape" or "delivered the plan he had all along"? No one really knows (apart from Nick Palmer and David Cameron). Certainly not me, you or Toenails.corporeal said:
He has a face-saving escape if he can get the greens involved somehow.MikeSmithson said:Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right
If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.
But that won't save much face, and won't help the flak he's getting right now.
Just because it's planned doesn't preclude it being an escape, just means you foresaw the situation you need to escape from.
And Cameron can't know for certain he can get the Greens involved.0 -
"Ed is so Crap he will overcome every advantage he holds to lose the election for Labour" believers beware.ydoethur said:
It had finally dawned on Alistair Campbell that as expectations for Major were so low, he would almost certainly exceed them.ashley said:heh
Tony Blair last night infuriated William Hague and Charles Kennedy by rejecting proposals by the BBC and ITV for a three-way televised election debate on the grounds that Britain's democratic combat is lively enough without one.
The prime minister's decision not to risk such a high-profile contest had been widely expected but prompted taunts that Mr Blair is what the Tory leader dubbed "a real chicken".
Mr Kennedy said the prime minister was unwilling to debate without the "400 cheerleaders" who sit behind him in the Commons.
Mr Hague even urged the broadcasters to go ahead with the two proposed debates anyway. "If Tony Blair still refuses to show, we'll just leave an empty chair with a big sign of 'coward' for where Tony Blair would have sat if he'd had the guts to turn up," he said.0 -
Yet their vote share actually went down compared to 2009. People have had plenty of chances to vote for the Greens in actual elections during this term and only a very small minority have obliged.HYUFD said:Artist You mean like the 2014 Euro election results where the Greens beat the LDs?
0 -
The BBC aren't governed by OFCOM. You could have a 5-4-2 set of debates with the BBC doing the 5.surbiton said:
It is not for Ed and Nick to agree. It is for OFCOM to agree as they can only decide which parties qualify. If they now do a volte-face , their credibility goes down.MaxPB said:
The most likely is option four and the debates go ahead with the Greens participating. The onus is now on Ed and Nick to agree.ashley said:
1) Cameron does a "no more NHS top-down reorgnisation" and does a shameless about-face on his word about the Greens.SquareRoot said:Too many instant judgements being made, Dave has supposedly thought it out, lets see how it pans out.
2) Cameron is empty chaired.
Or
3) There's some messy compromise where who is to blame for the mess gets lost in the mess.
Cameron is clearly gambling on the latter, calculating that it would be less bad for him than actually defending his record in public.0 -
I dunno though, Clegg had pretty low expectations ahead of his debates with Farage this year, but he still managed to be damaged by them.kle4 said:
"Ed is so Crap he will overcome every advantage he holds to lose the election for Labour" believers beware.ydoethur said:
It had finally dawned on Alistair Campbell that as expectations for Major were so low, he would almost certainly exceed them.ashley said:heh
Tony Blair last night infuriated William Hague and Charles Kennedy by rejecting proposals by the BBC and ITV for a three-way televised election debate on the grounds that Britain's democratic combat is lively enough without one.
The prime minister's decision not to risk such a high-profile contest had been widely expected but prompted taunts that Mr Blair is what the Tory leader dubbed "a real chicken".
Mr Kennedy said the prime minister was unwilling to debate without the "400 cheerleaders" who sit behind him in the Commons.
Mr Hague even urged the broadcasters to go ahead with the two proposed debates anyway. "If Tony Blair still refuses to show, we'll just leave an empty chair with a big sign of 'coward' for where Tony Blair would have sat if he'd had the guts to turn up," he said.0 -
The SNP took the broadcasters to court the last time they were excluded. I'm not sure that anything has changed tto change that.kle4 said:
Perhaps that is sometimes so, but in this particular instance, it seems perfectly reasonable, and I have no doubt the SNP have no real problem with it either. Complaining about it is as much as they would have wanted or needed out of this situation.Carnyx said:
It's remarkable how un-Unionist the Unionists can be when it comes to trying to exclude their opponents on any excuse whatsoever.calum said:The SNP are wading in with their take on this:
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments
The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?
0 -
I don't think the BBC will go ahead with it. But Sky for publicity and ratings just might. ITV , not sure.corporeal said:
The law is they have to offer him the opportunity to take part.surbiton said:What's the legal position regarding non-participation ? Last time, Sky said they would have an empty chair. Is that permissable under Electoral Law ?
If he refuses then they can go ahead without him. (The empty chair is just a bit of theatre).0 -
As a Kipper I find Cameron running scared most amusing, but if I'm being honest the real problem is that Nick Clegg was allowed in the debates last time.
I really don't like these debates, but if we are going to have them then they should be between those who can realistically be considered to have a chance of being Prime Minister. And right now that's Cameron and Miliband.
But if we have to have Clegg then we have to have Farage and if we have Farage then we have to have someone from the Greens, Respect, SNP, Plaid and the NI lot.0 -
Except that Scotland is part of the UK, or is my memory wrong?Morris_Dancer said:Indeed, Mr. kle4. A party of Scotland deserves a place in Scottish debates, not the UK's.
Are not the Greens who have a MP for Brighton a specifically English party, anyway, or do they cover Wales as well?
0 -
Pure theatre.Carnyx said:
The SNP took the broadcasters to court the last time they were excluded..kle4 said:
Perhaps that is sometimes so, but in this particular instance, it seems perfectly reasonable, and I have no doubt the SNP have no real problem with it either. Complaining about it is as much as they would have wanted or needed out of this situation.Carnyx said:
It's remarkable how un-Unionist the Unionists can be when it comes to trying to exclude their opponents on any excuse whatsoever.calum said:The SNP are wading in with their take on this:
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments
The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?0 -
corporeal said:
Sure it is.AlbionTilIDie said:
No, it isn't an escape if he had planned it.corporeal said:
Well, it's a face saving escape either way, since he's put himself in a bit of a hole today. He may have planned an escape but it seems a long shot.AlbionTilIDie said:
"Face-saving escape" or "delivered the plan he had all along"? No one really knows (apart from Nick Palmer and David Cameron). Certainly not me, you or Toenails.corporeal said:
He has a face-saving escape if he can get the greens involved somehow.MikeSmithson said:Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right
If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.
But that won't save much face, and won't help the flak he's getting right now.
Just because it's planned doesn't preclude it being an escape, just means you foresaw the situation you need to escape from.
And Cameron can't know for certain he can get the Greens involved.
Who knows, the Greens might overtake the Lib Dems if they got involved, that would be most amusing.
I do hope Mike Smithson hasn't bet the farm on Dave not getting re-elected, its been the tone of the site for the last three years.. embarrassing if Dave won thro' against the odds... so to speak0 -
How was Farage in the debates last time? I can't quite remember.....Jonathan said:Dave has been looking for a way out of the debates for ages. He was perfectly happy to debate without the Greens in 2010.
Clearly this will damage him, but one wonders why he would rather take this damage than participate. He wasn't that bad last time around.
Or is it a spurious comparison perchance....0 -
Mr. Carnyx, the Greens stand all over the country. If Yorkshire First, or whatever the band of madmen who want a Yorkshire Parliament are called, wanted a seat (and had strong electoral support here) I'd also oppose their inclusion.0
-
Either of option 3 or 4 would suit Cameron well, and I agree that's what he's aiming for.antifrank said:
You missed:ashley said:
3) There's some messy compromise where who is to blame for the mess gets lost in the mess.
Cameron is clearly gambling on the latter, calculating that it would be less bad for him than actually defending his record in public.
4) The Greens get invited to the debates.
OFCOM major party status has nothing (officially) to do with who is invited to the TV debates. OFCOM have loudly reiterated that today.surbiton said:It is not for Ed and Nick to agree. It is for OFCOM to agree as they can only decide which parties qualify. If they now do a volte-face , their credibility goes down.
It's only about who gets PPBs and the like. But naturally, it influence the TV debate issue indirectly.
So Cameron is using the OFCOM major party status as a proxy re: the negotations regarding who gets invited to the debates, should they happen. Again, a case of muddying the waters in order to diffuse the blame. It's definitely the least-worst option for him to have chosen IMO.0 -
I think the legal advice in the end was that OFCOM would win and the SNP queitly backed down. Ironically, as the Green Party is NOT a UK wide party , the result will be the same.Carnyx said:
The SNP took the broadcasters to court the last time they were excluded. I'm not sure that anything has changed tto change that.kle4 said:
Perhaps that is sometimes so, but in this particular instance, it seems perfectly reasonable, and I have no doubt the SNP have no real problem with it either. Complaining about it is as much as they would have wanted or needed out of this situation.Carnyx said:
It's remarkable how un-Unionist the Unionists can be when it comes to trying to exclude their opponents on any excuse whatsoever.calum said:The SNP are wading in with their take on this:
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments
The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?0 -
The thing to set against that is that Major was, when he chose, quite an impressive performer. He was calm, measured and could project reassurance. He also had a voice that people could listen to. More importantly, he had 30 years' experience of politics.kle4 said:
"Ed is so Crap he will overcome every advantage he holds to lose the election for Labour" believers beware.
Ed Miliband, on the other hand, looks, sounds and sometimes behaves like a refugee from the losing side of a public-school sixth form debating society. The irony of the fact that this is more or less the opposite of what he is makes this amusing, but his air of patronising condescension delivered in a nasal whine is not well suited to TV debates.
But as you say - if he even looked and sounded vaguely normal for once, it might well give him the boost he so desperately needs.
0 -
Nonsense Jonathan, and you know it.. Have you been reading the Labour play book today?Scrapheap_as_was said:
How was Farage in the debates last time? I can't quite remember.....Jonathan said:Dave has been looking for a way out of the debates for ages. He was perfectly happy to debate without the Greens in 2010.
Clearly this will damage him, but one wonders why he would rather take this damage than participate. He wasn't that bad last time around.
Or is it a spurious comparison perchance....0 -
OK then I need to escape cos my teas ready. No Greens involved, but some carrots.corporeal said:
Sure it is.AlbionTilIDie said:
No, it isn't an escape if he had planned it.corporeal said:
Well, it's a face saving escape either way, since he's put himself in a bit of a hole today. He may have planned an escape but it seems a long shot.AlbionTilIDie said:
"Face-saving escape" or "delivered the plan he had all along"? No one really knows (apart from Nick Palmer and David Cameron). Certainly not me, you or Toenails.corporeal said:
He has a face-saving escape if he can get the greens involved somehow.MikeSmithson said:Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right
If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.
But that won't save much face, and won't help the flak he's getting right now.
Just because it's planned doesn't preclude it being an escape, just means you foresaw the situation you need to escape from.
And Cameron can't know for certain he can get the Greens involved.0 -
Lefties don't all agree.... with our resident ones.
Patrick Wintour@patrickwintour·1h1 hour ago
RT @rafaelbehr: I agree with Patrick.
Patrick Wintour@patrickwintour
Minority view. 3 TV debates did suck life from campaign. Cycle of pre-match build-up, match, post match poll, & post-match post-mortem.0 -
kle4/Artist They beat the LDs in many by-elections too, and had an MP before UKIP0
-
Good move from Cameron.
He's can't possibly win if Nigel Farage gets to do a TV debate with him, Clegg and Miliband.
If the broadcasters want the debates to happen now they have to invite the Greens.
Smart move.0 -
I think it's a mistake by Cameron,joining the crap election poster the tories brought out at the beginning of the month and getting caught out on the nhs at the start of the week.
A bad start by the tory party at the beginning of the GE campaign,lets hope they improve,bloody need to.0 -
Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. Carnyx, the Greens stand all over the country. If Yorkshire First, or whatever the band of madmen who want a Yorkshire Parliament are called, wanted a seat (and had strong electoral support here) I'd also oppose their inclusion.
With due respect, Mr D, no, they don't: that was my point. The Scottish Greens are a completely different mob from the southern Greens.
0 -
That's a good point about the Greens, though slightly odd as neither the Tories nor Labour nor the LDs are UK-wide either. I suppose they really mean "Great Britain" but it's getting increasingly irrational to treat the Six Counties as in but not really of the UK.surbiton said:
I think the legal advice in the end was that OFCOM would win and the SNP queitly backed down. Ironically, as the Green Party is NOT a UK wide party , the result will be the same.Carnyx said:
The SNP took the broadcasters to court the last time they were excluded. I'm not sure that anything has changed tto change that.kle4 said:
Perhaps that is sometimes so, but in this particular instance, it seems perfectly reasonable, and I have no doubt the SNP have no real problem with it either. Complaining about it is as much as they would have wanted or needed out of this situation.Carnyx said:
It's remarkable how un-Unionist the Unionists can be when it comes to trying to exclude their opponents on any excuse whatsoever.calum said:The SNP are wading in with their take on this:
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments
The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?
0 -
Yes, there are arguments to include them that are not unreasonable. But it is still easy to exclude them and not be unreasonable, it's just a question of which factors you are including and how much which ones you think are more important. I'd not mind seeing the Greens in any debate, but it isn't hard to exclude them reasonably.HYUFD said:kle4/Artist They beat the LDs in many by-elections too, and had an MP before UKIP
0 -
Yes, they do. UKIP already had major party status for the Euros (and went on to win).kle4 said:
Do they not give different status' to the parties depending on the election in question?HYUFD said:Artist You mean like the 2014 Euro election results where the Greens beat the LDs?
Labour has IMO more active interest in poverty and equality issues, which are pretty central for me. Also, in a FPTP system, I'm against splitting the left-of-centre vote.AlbionTilIDie said:
And genuine question Nick - aren't the Greens closer to your political beliefs than Labour? What do Labour offer you that the Greens don't?
On topic, it'd be a pity if the debates don't happen, but it's not up to the party leaders to decide - it's for OFCOM to propose a format, the leaders to decide whether to take part, and the TV companies to decide whether to broadcast them in the light of the decisions.
0 -
Just placed my first ever political bet(s)! Managed to get £10 on UKIP to win 1-2 seats at 7/2 and £15 on UKIP to win 3-4 seats at 7/1 at William Hill. I may increase the bet on 3-4 seats as it looks like quite good value when compared to about 2/5 on 5+ seats.
I can see them winning Clacton, however, how many seats after that is not so clear. Relentless attacks from the media could damage their chances and cost them a number of seats. December may be a taste of things to come as the various newspapers and broadcasters get behind their favourite political parties. However, a potential Grexit may boost their support.
The televised debates could also boost UKIP support, however, the inclusion of the Greens would reduce Farage's airtime. A four way debate could be particularly damaging to Cameron, especially as it is increasingly looking like his renegotiation on the UK's relationship with the is a non-starter. I would be very interested to see if he would recommend IN without any changes to the right to freedom of movement.
I will be interested to see the results of any polls conducted in the next few days, especially in light of Farage's comments on the attacks in France and the faux outrage from the main political parties, although UKIP would now be one of those according to OFCOM.0 -
Mr. Carnyx, after Scottish Labour's comedy stylings this week perhaps you could say the same about the reds.
It's inconsistent to segregate yourself to one part of the UK and then demand a UK stage.0 -
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. SE.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that UKIP will slightly underperform current forecasts.0 -
0
-
You could say that the English and Welsh Greens are standing in a majority of seats. And poll higher.surbiton said:Which Greens are we talking about ? The England & Wales one or the Scottish Greens which are a completely different party.
If the E&W Greens are on a UK wide debate, surely the SNP, PC, DUP, SDLP and SF have abetter claim.since they have more seats.0 -
kle4 They are also arguments for excluding UKIP and the LDs, either have 6 or 7 leaders in the debate like Sweden or New Zealand or just Miliband v Cameron0
-
Sorry Nick - that's not right - the format is nothing to do with OFCOM.NickPalmer said:On topic, it'd be a pity if the debates don't happen, but it's not up to the party leaders to decide - it's for OFCOM to propose a format, the leaders to decide whether to take part, and the TV companies to decide whether to broadcast them in the light of the decisions.
0 -
I fail to understand the basis for an empty chair given the many past examples of these debates failing to occur because the circumstances did not suit one or other of the party leaders. As far basck as 1966 Heath wanted to have separate one to one debates with Wilson and Grimond. Wilson would only agree to a single debate which included all three party leaders.In 1979 Thatcher declined to debate with Callaghan or with Foot and Kinnock in 1983 and 1987 respectively. In 1992 Major refused to debate with Kinnock , but did challenge Blair in 1997 who declined. On none of these occasions was there any suggestion of an empty chair - why should it be any different in 2015?Tissue_Price said:
No broadcaster is going to be stupid enough to empty chair someone with an approximately 50% chance of being the PM after the election.TGOHF said:
Sky want him in - they know it would be 3rd rate without the PM.ashley said:No doubt David Cameron is running scared. Rather sad to see from a supposed "leader" really.
At least one broadcaster should, and might just, call his bluff and empty chair him.0 -
This isn't a war. It's a democratic election with a neutral moderator in a debate. If Cameron doesn't feel capable of defending his record on an equal playing field, that truly is damning.Charles said:
To win a war, you need to fight only the battles that (a) you can win and (b) matter. Varus is an example of what happens if you get (a) wrong and Pyrhus if you get (b) wrong.Socrates said:
Farage wiped the floor with Clegg and he would wipe the floor with Cameron too. Cameron the Cowardly is running scared.AlbionTilIDie said:
I just don't get it. Dave faced Brown and a shiny new Clegg in the last debates and won through in the end. Why would he be scared of facing off against Ed, a damaged Clegg and a sweaty superficial Farage. Doesn't make sense.NickPalmer said:
Because it looks like (and is) an excuse, and he risks being empty-chaired. He could always send Ms May to represent him, I suppose.AlbionTilIDie said:Dave giving publicity to the Greens is a bad thing for the Tories why?
Out of interest how do you know it is an excuse.
There is nothing cowardly about tactical manouvring to avoid a contest that offers Cameron limited upside and plenty of downside risk.0 -
Sorry, by format I meant the list of participants.MikeL said:
Sorry Nick - that's not right - the format is nothing to do with OFCOM.NickPalmer said:On topic, it'd be a pity if the debates don't happen, but it's not up to the party leaders to decide - it's for OFCOM to propose a format, the leaders to decide whether to take part, and the TV companies to decide whether to broadcast them in the light of the decisions.
0 -
I remember SeanT saying Cameron definitely wouldn't do this because he's too pro-democracy0
-
I think the empty chair treatment is the most proper in this occasion, let the other leaders have a debate, if the PM doesn't come have an empty chair in his place.0
-
The difference is we've now had the debates, and they were successes, so there's likely to be both more public demand and more demand from the broadcasters for some type of debate to happen.justin124 said:
I fail to understand the basis for an empty chair given the many past examples of these debates failing to occur because the circumstances did not suit one or other of the party leaders. As far basck as 1966 Heath wanted to have separate one to one debates with Wilson and Grimond. Wilson would only agree to a single debate which included all three party leaders.In 1979 Thatcher declined to debate with Callaghan or with Foot and Kinnock in 1983 and 1987 respectively. In 1992 Major refused to debate with Kinnock , but did challenge Blair in 1997 who declined. On none of these occasions was there any suggestion of an empty chair - why should it be any different in 2015?Tissue_Price said:
No broadcaster is going to be stupid enough to empty chair someone with an approximately 50% chance of being the PM after the election.TGOHF said:
Sky want him in - they know it would be 3rd rate without the PM.ashley said:No doubt David Cameron is running scared. Rather sad to see from a supposed "leader" really.
At least one broadcaster should, and might just, call his bluff and empty chair him.0 -
If Cameron doesn't feel capable of defending his record on an equal playing field, that truly is damning.
not really. Cameron does not like debate and he does not look good doing it. Blair was the same. Its all about the message for these people.
In fact many modern politicians are the same. Mrs Thatcher, on the other hand, could have an argument in a phone box.
But now we are comparing giants and pygmies.0 -
Three reasons, firstly in most of those elections it was much more 2 party dominant, so the debates were much more damaged by one been absent than now, secondly we've had debates so there's a greater sense that they should be done, thirdly it's been talked about before but not done, still uncertain if broadcasters would go for the threat.justin124 said:
I fail to understand the basis for an empty chair given the many past examples of these debates failing to occur because the circumstances did not suit one or other of the party leaders. As far basck as 1966 Heath wanted to have separate one to one debates with Wilson and Grimond. Wilson would only agree to a single debate which included all three party leaders.In 1979 Thatcher declined to debate with Callaghan or with Foot and Kinnock in 1983 and 1987 respectively. In 1992 Major refused to debate with Kinnock , but did challenge Blair in 1997 who declined. On none of these occasions was there any suggestion of an empty chair - why should it be any different in 2015?Tissue_Price said:
No broadcaster is going to be stupid enough to empty chair someone with an approximately 50% chance of being the PM after the election.TGOHF said:
Sky want him in - they know it would be 3rd rate without the PM.ashley said:No doubt David Cameron is running scared. Rather sad to see from a supposed "leader" really.
At least one broadcaster should, and might just, call his bluff and empty chair him.
0 -
Devolution. Were there not Scottish and Welsh debates last time? What is different now? I think there might well still be debates - all that has to happen is that the other parties, rather than just pontificate could join Cameron in inviting the Greens in. I'm sure that Miliband and Clegg will be happy with that.Carnyx said:
Except that Scotland is part of the UK, or is my memory wrong?Morris_Dancer said:Indeed, Mr. kle4. A party of Scotland deserves a place in Scottish debates, not the UK's.
Are not the Greens who have a MP for Brighton a specifically English party, anyway, or do they cover Wales as well?
There could be 2 debates. 1 with all 5 and 1 with just 3 - or even just 2. Personally I think debates are anti democracy and just encourage the best actors to become leaders. Remember Blair anybody?0 -
Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?0
-
My understanding is that while the granting of major party status would pretty much mandate an invite to (at least one) debate in order to avoid a legal challenge, the broadcaster would still have free rein to invite other leaders too (and possibly not extend the invite to each and every debate??)NickPalmer said:
Sorry, by format I meant the list of participants.MikeL said:
Sorry Nick - that's not right - the format is nothing to do with OFCOM.NickPalmer said:On topic, it'd be a pity if the debates don't happen, but it's not up to the party leaders to decide - it's for OFCOM to propose a format, the leaders to decide whether to take part, and the TV companies to decide whether to broadcast them in the light of the decisions.
From OFCOM's publication today: "Broadcasters must ensure that all coverage, including any possible leadership debates, complies with rules concerning due impartiality and elections, as set out in the Code... The decision on which leaders are represented in any possible election debates is an editorial matter for broadcasters in agreement with the political parties taking part." Clearly there's a balancing act there as the two sentences are in tension with each other to some degree, but it doesn't sound as cut-and-dried as what you're saying.
You obviously have far more familiarity with these matters, but are you entirely sure?0 -
But Blair didn't do debates, that was mostly because debates are not scripted and controlled public events that Mandelson and Campbell usually organised back then.Flightpath said:
Devolution. Were there not Scottish and Welsh debates last time? What is different now? I think there might well still be debates - all that has to happen is that the other parties, rather than just pontificate could join Cameron in inviting the Greens in. I'm sure that Miliband and Clegg will be happy with that.Carnyx said:
Except that Scotland is part of the UK, or is my memory wrong?Morris_Dancer said:Indeed, Mr. kle4. A party of Scotland deserves a place in Scottish debates, not the UK's.
Are not the Greens who have a MP for Brighton a specifically English party, anyway, or do they cover Wales as well?
There could be 2 debates. 1 with all 5 and 1 with just 3 - or even just 2. Personally I think debates are anti democracy and just encourage the best actors to become leaders. Remember Blair anybody?
Blair flourished in a controlled media environment.0 -
I don't think the Greens should be excluded, but unless all five parties are in all three debates, I think UKIP should be in more than them. They're on triple the polling level.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
0 -
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
0 -
Nor are LibLabCon. They don't stand in N Ireland.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
0 -
That could apply to the LD too, since they poll worse and their vote is more concentrated.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
0 -
Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)0 -
Blair flourished in a controlled media environment.
Bill Hague kicked him all over the chamber at PMQs.0 -
The basis laid out in OFCOM's criteria and judgment?steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
0 -
Yeap, not many people will care about the chicken accusations, however if the other leaders agree to debate without Cameron the impact of that can be catastrophic for the Tories.GIN1138 said:Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)
He will either be forced to participate and get humiliated or refuse to participate and get humiliated.0 -
Personally I don't like XFactor politics and hope the Debates fail to happen.0
-
What has the polls got to do with it ? The Liberal Democrats in Scotland and in England are the same party. The Green Party with Natalie Bennett as their leader is not the Scottish Greens.Speedy said:
That could apply to the LD too, since they poll worse and their vote is more concentrated.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Green_Party0 -
Speedy Cameron should then debate Natalie Bennett separately at the same time, if he asks Sturgeon along too it could even top the ratings!0
-
IMHO its not about right or wrong, or deserving, it's about negotiation between the parties and TV.Speedy said:
That could apply to the LD too, since they poll worse and their vote is more concentrated.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
0 -
WEll if they want minnows with 1 or 2 MP's in then they have to let others with more MP's in, or are they really scared.Scott_P said:@ScottyNational: Foreign politics:FM demands General Election debates include SNP, Patrick Harvie, anyone with a Yes badge & that guy who got the Yes tattoo
0 -
He is not that good.Sunil_Prasannan said:
I ALMOST misread that as "3rd rate PM"TGOHF said:
Sky want him in - they know it would be 3rd rate without the PM.ashley said:No doubt David Cameron is running scared. Rather sad to see from a supposed "leader" really.
At least one broadcaster should, and might just, call his bluff and empty chair him.
0 -
OFCOM ruled Scotland separately from E&W.surbiton said:
What has the polls got to do with it ? The Liberal Democrats in Scotland and in England are the same party. The Green Party with Natalie Bennett as their leader is not the Scottish Greens.Speedy said:
That could apply to the LD too, since they poll worse and their vote is more concentrated.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
0 -
Hopefully the voters can see the blindingly obvious here. Milliband and Clegg want Farage in because he damages Cameron. Cameron wants Bennett in ( and probably wouldn't mind Sturgeon at all ) because she damages the other two. We don't have to be Einstein to fathom it.Speedy said:
Yeap, not many people will care about the chicken accusations, however if the other leaders agree to debate without Cameron the impact of that can be catastrophic for the Tories.GIN1138 said:Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)
He will either be forced to participate and get humiliated or refuse to participate and get humiliated.0 -
Harold (Opposition Parties) Steptoe may have the law of contract on his side, but Albert (Cameron) Steptoe has got the knobs on his.SimonStClare said:
Agree - I was baffled by the decision this morning to give major party status to a party with 2 newly elected MPs, and not to a party of one MP, elected last GE and of with several years’ experience. – However, as I understand it, this is only a consultative decision and not final.Richard_Tyndall said:As I said on the previous thread I agree with this entirely. The Greens are a national party with Parliamentary representation who are within striking distance vote wise of the other two minor parties who will be considered majors for this coming election. If UKIP and the Lib Dems are given major party status then the same should apply to the Greens. Actually as it stands we need a 2 tier system with Labour and the Tories in the top tier and UKIP, the Greens and the Lib Dems in the second tier.
http://www.albertandharold.co.uk/48.html
0 -
Sorry Nick - that's still not right - OFCOM hasn't said anything about TV debates.NickPalmer said:
Sorry, by format I meant the list of participants.MikeL said:
Sorry Nick - that's not right - the format is nothing to do with OFCOM.NickPalmer said:On topic, it'd be a pity if the debates don't happen, but it's not up to the party leaders to decide - it's for OFCOM to propose a format, the leaders to decide whether to take part, and the TV companies to decide whether to broadcast them in the light of the decisions.
OFCOM didn't make the 4/3/2 proposal - nor has OFCOM said anything about it.
OFCOM merely determines Major party status.
You could say the two are linked but not wholly so.
eg There could be one 4 way debate or the 4/3/2 proposal - OFCOM would not object to either and would have no say in which option was followed.
However, I agree that if Farage was completely excluded then OFCOM might object that it was inconsistent with UKIP's Major party status.0 -
The Green Party of England & Wales can be excluded exactly in the same manner as the SNP and PC are denied.welshowl said:
Nor are LibLabCon. They don't stand in N Ireland.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
The Green Party can certainly participate in an England or Welsh debate. The Scottish Green Party can participate in a Scotland wide debate.0 -
I don't think the TV channels would dare...Speedy said:
if the other leaders agree to debate without Cameron the impact of that can be catastrophic for the Tories.GIN1138 said:Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)
He will either be forced to participate and get humiliated or refuse to participate and get humiliated.
0 -
LOL, they make up any old excuses when it suits, unionists are a bunch of lying toerags. Major party with 1 piddling MP and a few duffers in the wings , you could not make it up in a banana republic.Carnyx said:
Except that Scotland is part of the UK, or is my memory wrong?Morris_Dancer said:Indeed, Mr. kle4. A party of Scotland deserves a place in Scottish debates, not the UK's.
Are not the Greens who have a MP for Brighton a specifically English party, anyway, or do they cover Wales as well?0 -
Thats a good way to describe it. But that is what modern television is all about. Put 5 incompatible people in a room and see what happens. The other version is to get them to cook for each other.justin124 said:Personally I don't like XFactor politics and hope the Debates fail to happen.
0 -
I think you're wrong about this. As long as they extended an invite to Cameron, they'd be covered by OFCOM, and they get to embarrass the Prime Minister as well as entrench the debates. What's not to like?GIN1138 said:
I don't think the TV channels would dare...Speedy said:
if the other leaders agree to debate without Cameron the impact of that can be catastrophic for the Tories.GIN1138 said:Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)
He will either be forced to participate and get humiliated or refuse to participate and get humiliated.0 -
Of course, they did. But the nationwide debate is not limited to England only. That is why only parties which field candidates in England, Wales and Scotland participate and have a critical mass. That's why BNP couldn't but UKIP can now.Speedy said:
OFCOM ruled Scotland separately from E&W.surbiton said:
What has the polls got to do with it ? The Liberal Democrats in Scotland and in England are the same party. The Green Party with Natalie Bennett as their leader is not the Scottish Greens.Speedy said:
That could apply to the LD too, since they poll worse and their vote is more concentrated.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
The Greens sadly cannot have candidates in Scotland unless they wish to compete against the Scottish Greens.0 -
Why wouldn't they agree to broadcast a debate of political leaders in which the PM was invited to, but refused to participate?GIN1138 said:
I don't think the TV channels would dare...Speedy said:
if the other leaders agree to debate without Cameron the impact of that can be catastrophic for the Tories.GIN1138 said:Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)
He will either be forced to participate and get humiliated or refuse to participate and get humiliated.0 -
Why should Plaid/SNP be denied ( well especially the SNP, they might have 30 odd MP's come May 8th).surbiton said:
The Green Party of England & Wales can be excluded exactly in the same manner as the SNP and PC are denied.welshowl said:
Nor are LibLabCon. They don't stand in N Ireland.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
The Green Party can certainly participate in an England or Welsh debate. The Scottish Green Party can participate in a Scotland wide debate.
Anyway if not standing in England is the exclusion criterion, what's to stop the SNP standing in say 200 English seats?
0 -
ed would be bonkers to participate in debates without Cameron. Zero upside for him, and might get monstered by either of Clegg and Farage.Speedy said:
Yeap, not many people will care about the chicken accusations, however if the other leaders agree to debate without Cameron the impact of that can be catastrophic for the Tories.GIN1138 said:Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)
He will either be forced to participate and get humiliated or refuse to participate and get humiliated.
0 -
Socrates Cameron and Bennett and Sturgeon and Robinson and Wood should have a separate debate at the same time, maybe ask Galloway too0
-
Cameron and the Green leader should arrange a date for a debate between themselves, and cordially invite the other three to attend.0
-
It seems to me like an attempt to create a 'greengasm'; introducing the greens as a nice safe repository of protest votes, Lib Dems Mk 2. That way statist eurofanatic politics can continue unhindered by those unpleasant UKIP oafs who actually want to change things. We should also remember that the Green's European representation is purely because the Electoral Commission failed to act on 'An Independence From Europe'.
I'm not sure what's fair or not in this situation. I am sure that those arguing most strenuously for the Green's inclusion would be those arguing most strenuously the other way if we were looking at a 3 way debate with UKIP being shut out.0 -
Marriage makes people happier:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/upshot/study-finds-more-reasons-to-get-and-stay-married.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
Social scientists have long known that married people tend to be happier, but they debate whether that is because marriage causes happiness or simply because happier people are more likely to get married. The new paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, controlled for pre-marriage happiness levels.
It concluded that being married makes people happier and more satisfied with their lives than those who remain single – particularly during the most stressful periods, like midlife crises.0 -
English law is not equivalent to Scots. Go knuckle-drag in your lickle parish and leave the grown-ups (English) alone ysmf!Carnyx said:
The SNP took the broadcasters to court the last time they were excluded. I'm not sure that anything has changed tto change that.kle4 said:
Perhaps that is sometimes so, but in this particular instance, it seems perfectly reasonable, and I have no doubt the SNP have no real problem with it either. Complaining about it is as much as they would have wanted or needed out of this situation.Carnyx said:
It's remarkable how un-Unionist the Unionists can be when it comes to trying to exclude their opponents on any excuse whatsoever.calum said:The SNP are wading in with their take on this:
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments
The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?0 -
Well, long term relationships rather than marriage.Socrates said:Marriage makes people happier:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/upshot/study-finds-more-reasons-to-get-and-stay-married.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
Social scientists have long known that married people tend to be happier, but they debate whether that is because marriage causes happiness or simply because happier people are more likely to get married. The new paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, controlled for pre-marriage happiness levels.
It concluded that being married makes people happier and more satisfied with their lives than those who remain single – particularly during the most stressful periods, like midlife crises.0 -
Surely the Green parties can form an electoral alliance.surbiton said:
Of course, they did. But the nationwide debate is not limited to England only. That is why only parties which field candidates in England, Wales and Scotland participate and have a critical mass. That's why BNP couldn't but UKIP can now.Speedy said:
OFCOM ruled Scotland separately from E&W.surbiton said:
What has the polls got to do with it ? The Liberal Democrats in Scotland and in England are the same party. The Green Party with Natalie Bennett as their leader is not the Scottish Greens.Speedy said:
That could apply to the LD too, since they poll worse and their vote is more concentrated.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
The Greens sadly cannot have candidates in Scotland unless they wish to compete against the Scottish Greens.
0 -
If UKIP were averaging around 5% in the polls with 1 MP and v little hope of getting any more, while the Greens had 2 MPS, 15% in the polls, were favs in 5 seats/spread price of 7.5-9.5, and had won the last national election, I would hand on heart be saying the Greens had to be in the debates and UKIP should stop complainingsteve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
0 -
Again just like it was mentioned earlier with Major in 97, the expectations for Ed are so low that he can easily beat them.Ishmael_X said:
ed would be bonkers to participate in debates without Cameron. Zero upside for him, and might get monstered by either of Clegg and Farage.Speedy said:
Yeap, not many people will care about the chicken accusations, however if the other leaders agree to debate without Cameron the impact of that can be catastrophic for the Tories.GIN1138 said:Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)
He will either be forced to participate and get humiliated or refuse to participate and get humiliated.
Also the main thing is that since Cameron wont be there, the Tories will be easy prey for all 3 leaders, since there will be no one to defend them.
Even Clegg can profit from it by saying that Cameron doesn't have the guts to defend the government in a national TV debate while he does.
0 -
The big political story of the day was OFCOM's recognition of UKIP as a major party and more, a major player in the forthcoming general election. That move rang all the bells for the MSM and political pundits that UKIP had truly arrived.
For the first time in a century a new UK political party is moving into the big time. Wether UKIP score 5 seats, 10 seats, 40 seats, or as I've heard lately 102 seats, the £ sign reverberates.0 -
MD Exactly0
-
A few months back the argument being expounded was that UKIP shouldn't be in the debates due to not being classed as a major party by ofcom. Same people that were arguing that are now the ones arguing the greens should be in even though they are not classed as a major party by the same OFCOM they set so much store by before.
I can't see why anyone could possibly think they are pursuing a partisan agenda on this.0 -
Who is going to be the winner in The Big Brother House of Commons, will it be Dave from Witney, Nick from Sheffield, Ed from Doncaster, Nigel from Thanet, Natalie from St Pancras. This year surprise guests will turn up from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.Flightpath said:
Thats a good way to describe it. But that is what modern television is all about. Put 5 incompatible people in a room and see what happens. The other version is to get them to cook for each other.justin124 said:Personally I don't like XFactor politics and hope the Debates fail to happen.
0 -
102 - no need to get carried away !MikeK said:The big political story of the day was OFCOM's recognition of UKIP as a major party and more, a major player in the forthcoming general election. That move rang all the bells for the MSM and political pundits that UKIP had truly arrived.
For the first time in a century a new UK political party is moving into the big time. Wether UKIP score 5 seats, 10 seats, 40 seats, or as I've heard lately 102 seats, the £ sign reverberates.0 -
I can't remember the detail of how the debates were arranged in 2010, but am I right in thinking that it was all a bit like today's announcement ? This or that will happen no hang on this definitely won't happen. It's horse-trading. The debates will happen, and will include David Cameron.0
-
A sensible move from Cameron. He'd be insane to debate with another Rightist who can fire off endless brickbats without having to defend any governmental record of his own. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel for Farage. Of course, a tyro Leftist tearing chunks out of Labour would even things up, but I suspect Miliband won't agree to that either for the same reason.0
-
The scottish Greens want scottish independence, an alliance with an english party might beat the purpose.JohnLilburne said:
Surely the Green parties can form an electoral alliance.surbiton said:
Of course, they did. But the nationwide debate is not limited to England only. That is why only parties which field candidates in England, Wales and Scotland participate and have a critical mass. That's why BNP couldn't but UKIP can now.Speedy said:
OFCOM ruled Scotland separately from E&W.surbiton said:
What has the polls got to do with it ? The Liberal Democrats in Scotland and in England are the same party. The Green Party with Natalie Bennett as their leader is not the Scottish Greens.Speedy said:
That could apply to the LD too, since they poll worse and their vote is more concentrated.surbiton said:
They are not a national party.steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
The Greens sadly cannot have candidates in Scotland unless they wish to compete against the Scottish Greens.
0 -
Thanks Nick. First part of answer is a good answer. Second part of answer suggests if the Greens were polling 30% in your constituency and Labour 5% you would jump to the Greens. Which is the level of loyalty to be expected from a Leftie politician. I myself detest political opportunism just to stay in power (cf 2 UKIP MPs).NickPalmer said:
Yes, they do. UKIP already had major party status for the Euros (and went on to win).kle4 said:
Do they not give different status' to the parties depending on the election in question?HYUFD said:Artist You mean like the 2014 Euro election results where the Greens beat the LDs?
Labour has IMO more active interest in poverty and equality issues, which are pretty central for me. Also, in a FPTP system, I'm against splitting the left-of-centre vote.AlbionTilIDie said:
And genuine question Nick - aren't the Greens closer to your political beliefs than Labour? What do Labour offer you that the Greens don't?
On topic, it'd be a pity if the debates don't happen, but it's not up to the party leaders to decide - it's for OFCOM to propose a format, the leaders to decide whether to take part, and the TV companies to decide whether to broadcast them in the light of the decisions.0 -
That their inclusion would be based purely on debatable polling figures and the collapse of the Lib Dems? The two main parties get in, then you're assessing who else - the Lib Dems are a part of the government, and so have to be included whatever they poll. Then you've got UKIP who won the most recent national election and are a clear third in the polls. You could then invite the Greens next, but it's a far less compelling case for inclusion than UKIP. Yes they've got an MP - but haven't, unlike UKIP shown much indication they can significantly break through elsewhere, even in highly optimistic scenarios. If they were at 4% (which they might be given MoE) and the Lib Dems were doing two or three points better no one would even be even contemplating including them.corporeal said:
The basis laid out in OFCOM's criteria and judgment?steve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
It just depends on whether you think the cut-off should be 4 or 5, and I'm guessing that the broadcasters when drawing up the proposals were worried that including the Greens would open them up to challenges from the SNP and Plaid as they're not either in government, the official opposition or the clear third party. I don't care much either way, but it's absurd to claim that it's some sort of affront to democracy that they're not included and attempting to scupper them if they're not is transparently pretty cynical.
0 -
And the SNP are at about 3% (UK wide) but are favourites in somewhere from 10-40 seats depending on who is doing the talking.isam said:
If UKIP were averaging around 5% in the polls with 1 MP and v little hope of getting any more, while the Greens had 2 MPS, 15% in the polls, were favs in 5 seats/spread price of 7.5-9.5, and had won the last national election, I would hand on heart be saying the Greens had to be in the debates and UKIP should stop complainingsteve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
The point is that the landscape is now very diverse and a long way from two party politics of yore, but that all of the Libs, UKIP, the Greens, and the SNP, have strengths and weaknesses that could reasonably exclude or include them. Fairness from where I'm sat says exclude them all ( bonkers in my view given the Libs are in Govt) or include the lot.0 -
I think we are just seeing posturing and people setting out positions. After all don't kippers believe that unless Cameron advocates "better off out" unless harsh conditions are met, he will not be taken seriously?Fat_Steve said:I can't remember the detail of how the debates were arranged in 2010, but am I right in thinking that it was all a bit like today's announcement ? This or that will happen no hang on this definitely won't happen. It's horse-trading. The debates will happen, and will include David Cameron.
0 -
Well if there was one on Scottish TV then by all means get the SNP in place of UKIP I supposewelshowl said:
And the SNP are at about 3% (UK wide) but are favourites in somewhere from 10-40 seats depending on who is doing the talking.isam said:
If UKIP were averaging around 5% in the polls with 1 MP and v little hope of getting any more, while the Greens had 2 MPS, 15% in the polls, were favs in 5 seats/spread price of 7.5-9.5, and had won the last national election, I would hand on heart be saying the Greens had to be in the debates and UKIP should stop complainingsteve_garner said:Anyone on PB think it's correct that the Greens be excluded from the debates? If so, on what basis?
The point is that the landscape is now very diverse and a long way from two party politics of yore, but that all of the Libs, UKIP, the Greens, and the SNP, have strengths and weaknesses that could reasonably exclude or include them. Fairness from where I'm sat says exclude them all ( bonkers in my view given the Libs are in Govt) or include the lot.
But I cant see an argument for including the Greens really, no offence to them0 -
As Cameron would boycott all the debates, one debate would be just Ed debating himself. TV gold!GIN1138 said:
I don't think the TV channels would dare...Speedy said:
if the other leaders agree to debate without Cameron the impact of that can be catastrophic for the Tories.GIN1138 said:Doubt it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Miliband, Farage and Clegg can huff and puff all they like but ultimately I don't think many people will care about this.
(I want to see TV debates personally)
He will either be forced to participate and get humiliated or refuse to participate and get humiliated.
0
