politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 7-sided TV debate as proposed by Cameron could go ahead:

JackW said:

Cameron was quite happy, even enthusiastic for campaign debates in 2010.

chestnut said:

Like Britain in 1940, Dave stands alone, defiant.

peter_from_putney said:

Quite agree - Cameron really comes out of this very badly indeed. God help the Tories if this is typical of the type of hide away strategy they are intending to adopt throughout the campaign.

Neil said:

chestnut said:

Like Britain in 1940, Dave stands alone, defiant.

Or, like Britain in 1940, Dave is the junior partner in an effort to avoid being clobbered by the debates?

Scott_P said:

@MediaGuido: Meanwhile outside the Westminster politico-media bubble @PopulusPolls finds that 4% of the population has noticed the #TVdebates row...FOUR!

CarlottaVance said:

Neil said:

chestnut said:

Like Britain in 1940, Dave stands alone, defiant.

Or, like Britain in 1940, Dave is the junior partner in an effort to avoid being clobbered by the debates?

Who was the senior partner in 1940?

Scott_P said:

@MediaGuido: Meanwhile outside the Westminster politico-media bubble @PopulusPolls finds that 4% of the population has noticed the #TVdebates row...FOUR!

isam said:

Any more track and field results Scott?

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

Storm and teacup come to mind. That number will get larger if he is empty chaired!!

@JananGanesh: Another phrase for "empty chair" is "several people who aren't prime minister debating each other". Not sure it's the spectacle some think.

GIN1138 said:

Pulpstar said:

Sky News & Kay Burley specifically clearly not impressed with Dave over this ^_^';'

Will Kay grab someone's throat and throttle them in her temper?

Pulpstar said:

Can I get some odds on the Sun declaring Dave the winner of the head to head (If it goes ahead) please, likewise the Mirror for Ed ?

MikeL said:

JackW said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, Cameron has stated for years he thought the debates should happen earlier and be more spaced out. Broadcasters ignored that.

Of course, he does look evasive, but as I loathe the debates, it doesn't bother me.

The risk isn't one way. Aside from the 'six squabbling idiots' scenario I outlined below, if the media and other politicians bang on about this ad infinitum, it'll annoy voters who want to know about things like taxation rates, the deficit, and so forth. There comes a point where complaining becomes whining.

The broadcasters ignored the PM's early debates because he doesn't determine the time scale and all other parties were signed up to them and Cameron was quite happy, even enthusiastic for campaign debates in 2010.

As a supporter of the Coalition I am dismayed at the PM's stance. The blame lies with him and his idiot advisers. The majority of the public will also know where the problem lies and it is squarely in No10.

Agree 100%, JackW.

I'm afraid most of the posts on this website this afternoon amount to nothing more than cheerleading banter.

This is actually very, very serious for Cameron. He has to close the issue down immediately. He'll have to say something like:

"I would have preferred X and X would have been much more preferable but given the broadcasters have decided to go ahead with Y then I will of course attend".

That is all he can do.

It has been blindingly obvious what was going to happen and people churning out pointless cheerleading banter on here is a complete waste of time.

Finally I note Shadsy has withdrawn his debate odds.

Neil said:

CarlottaVance said:

Neil said:

chestnut said:

Like Britain in 1940, Dave stands alone, defiant.

Or, like Britain in 1940, Dave is the junior partner in an effort to avoid being clobbered by the debates?

Who was the senior partner in 1940?

You'll have to ask Cameron, Carlotta. I think he thought it was America.

Pulpstar said:

likewise the Mirror for Ed ?

antifrank said:

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE · 11s11 seconds ago
The second-string Labour message is....

"BRITAIN SUCCEEDS WHEN WORKING FAMILIES SUCCEED"

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.

Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.

The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.

I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.

It's not unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein as they do not face a challenge from any Major Party in NI which is being included in the debates. It's really that simple. All Major Parties competing against one another are included (plus the Greens who are still fighting Ofcom on this).

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, Cameron has stated for years he thought the debates should happen earlier and be more spaced out. Broadcasters ignored that.

Of course, he does look evasive, but as I loathe the debates, it doesn't bother me.

The risk isn't one way. Aside from the 'six squabbling idiots' scenario I outlined below, if the media and other politicians bang on about this ad infinitum, it'll annoy voters who want to know about things like taxation rates, the deficit, and so forth. There comes a point where complaining becomes whining.

chestnut said:

Scott_P said:

@JananGanesh: Another phrase for "empty chair" is "several people who aren't prime minister debating each other". Not sure it's the spectacle some think.

A leadership debate without Dave is about as exciting as a ticket to watch Queen without Freddie.

Hengists_Gift said:

Dair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.

Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.

The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.

I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.

It's not unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein as they do not face a challenge from any Major Party in NI which is being included in the debates. It's really that simple. All Major Parties competing against one another are included (plus the Greens who are still fighting Ofcom on this).

That's just a fact, not a justifiction.

Actually it's more than a fact, its the basis which Ofcom uses to evaluate how broadcasters have covered the election. Major party fairness is all that matters in terms of the overall coverage.

Not so. Section 6.10 of Ofcom would seem to address fairness amongst smaller parties and in terms of their representation at Westminster it is not just a regional issue. The significant Irish parties should be given the same platform as other smaller parties and not to do so seems to breach Section 6.10 of Ofcom's rules.

6.10 In addition to Rule 6.9, broadcasters must offer the opportunity to take part in constituency or electoral area reports and discussions, to all candidates within the constituency or electoral area representing parties with previous significant electoral support or where there is evidence of significant current support. This also applies to independent candidates. (However, if a candidate refuses or is unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)

6.13 If coverage is given to wider election regions, for example in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly or European Parliament, then Rules 6.8 to 6.12 apply in offering participation to candidates.....

SMukesh said:

And this thread header looks rather foolish now,doesn`t it?

Hengists_Gift said:

hucks67 said:

Whether you like the TV debates or not. Or whether you like the way they have been negotiated, the fact is that they became part of the UK election period, when Cameron encouraged Brown to agree to debates in 2010. There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign. But he seems to have left it to the last minute to object.

The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.

If he does turn up everyone will know that he, the Prime Minister had been faced down by the TV companies. He would start the debates already disadvantaged. I don't think he will attend. It won't stop Tories voting for Cameron but it will possible hinder swing voters doing the same. That said the debates without the Prime Minister will become somewhat farcical if the Government is not represented by its main party to defend their performance.

Of course the secondary question is what does Clegg do? If Cameron doesn't attend he will end up the one defending government policy because everything that has gone through his party agreed with. Five on to one is not going to be pretty. Could Clegg also cry off if Cameron doesn't go?

Neil said:

Tissue_Price said:

SMukesh said:

And this thread header looks rather foolish now,doesn`t it?

It's almost as if some news has intervened.

It might even be an idea for OGH to update the thread header. Oh look, he has!

Scott_P said:

hucks67 said:

There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign.

And he has been saying it for about 5 years

hucks67 said:

It was up to Cameron and his team to work with the broadcasters

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

As I indicated previously Cameron's advisers on the debates issue need their goolies placed in mangle pour encourager les autres from future election stupidity....

Very true and there are two main advisers to Cameron. Osborne and Crosby. Osborne carries the scars from his daft support for the debates (in that format) at the last GE. So it is puzzling that Crosby agrees. Or does Crosby think that? We will find out at some point in the future.
Cameron has a better image overall than Miliband. But one of his few negatives is appearing to look out of touch. This decision reinforces that image.

Tissue_Price said:

SMukesh said:

And this thread header looks rather foolish now,doesn`t it?

It's almost as if some news has intervened.

TheWatcher said:

I see Sue Inglish, married to a former Labour party spin doctor, is one of the signatories to that letter from the broadcasters. Westminster politics is a small world innit.

Pulpstar said:

Hengists_Gift said:

Dair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.

Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.

The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.

I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.

It's not unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein as they do not face a challenge from any Major Party in NI which is being included in the debates. It's really that simple. All Major Parties competing against one another are included (plus the Greens who are still fighting Ofcom on this).

That's just a fact, not a justifiction.

Actually it's more than a fact, its the basis which Ofcom uses to evaluate how broadcasters have covered the election. Major party fairness is all that matters in terms of the overall coverage.

Not so. Section 6.10 of Ofcom would seem to address fairness amongst smaller parties and in terms of their representation at Westminster it is not just a regional issue. The significant Irish parties should be given the same platform as other smaller parties and not to do so seems to breach Section 6.10 of Ofcom's rules.

6.10 In addition to Rule 6.9, broadcasters must offer the opportunity to take part in constituency or electoral area reports and discussions, to all candidates within the constituency or electoral area representing parties with previous significant electoral support or where there is evidence of significant current support. This also applies to independent candidates. (However, if a candidate refuses or is unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)

6.13 If coverage is given to wider election regions, for example in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly or European Parliament, then Rules 6.8 to 6.12 apply in offering participation to candidates.....

Ah yes I remember all those DUP election broadcasts on the TV now.

Ishmael_X said:

JackW said:

Scott_P said:

JackW said:

Cameron was quite happy, even enthusiastic for campaign debates in 2010.

And he saw how they took over the entire campaign and changed his mind.

When the facts change...

The facts have changed for Dave.

Empty chair or climb down.

Bullied by a foursome of which one is Rupert Murdoch. And you are happy about that?

I think Cameron is doing the right thing, even if it is ti his political disadvantage.

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn
Follow
I hear ITV contemplating going unilateral and hosting a 7 way debate as per No10 offer, as they have 1st one. Would send BBC/Sky apoplectic.

I hear TND talks Bollox

Tykejohnno said:

RobD said:

GIN1138 said:

OllyT said:

I can see why the Cameroons don't want debates because Miliband or Farage are more likely to get a boost from them than he is. However, despite the PB Tory attempts at spin, he will either be perceived as a coward scared of debating with his opponents or a bully trying to stop debates going ahead because he hasn't got his own way. Can't see any way that Cameron comes out of this looking the winner when Clegg, Milliband and Farage are all united in their desire for the debates to take place. If he tries to stop being "empty chaired" legally he will be digging an even bigger hole.

The only course of action for the Tories is to do the first debate on ITV then accept the "empty chair" from BBC and Sky.

We have no idea what they implications of the "empty chair" will be but we do know that despite all the sound and fury in 2010 the debates made virtually no difference to the outcome so Cam may get away with being "empty chaired" anyway...

It'll make charter renewal fun Kudos to the BBC for not backing down.

Bloody disgraceful from the BBC,did they ever threaten to empty chair Labour PM Tony Blair.

Smarmeron said:

@MarkHopkins
It is a nasty left wing conspiracy! Dave should declare marshall law and have himself anointed god emperor (as is his birthright)