Public Blame Dave For Tv Debates Stalemate

[mikey4444]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/08/public-blame-david-cameron-breakdown-tv-debates/

Why doesn't he just stop listening to his swivel-eyed advisers and appear on TV alongside everybody else ?

What is he afraid of ?

[anotheoldgit]

A different view on this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985686/Ed-mocked-trying-make-TV-debates-law-Labour-leader-ridiculed-sides-Salmond-asking-Cameron-jailed-not-taking-part.html

[mikey4444]

For the record aog, I think Labour have got this wrong, and I expect this policy will die a quiet death after they win the Election in a few weeks time.

[ToraToraTora]

Gawd it's like stuck record, read my answer here:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1405574.html

[jno]

I certainly don't want to see party leaders having to appear on TV by law. But if they decide voluntarily not to do so, the public can draw their own conclusions, and it seems they have.

[weecalf]

How many on the debate now 26 is it .Waste of time .If 26 are on it that gives each 2.675 minutes and 25 for the presenter .Have no interest in politics as cant understand half of what they are saying and more frightening they do noot either .

[Gromit]

You seem to have asked this question about 10 times.

He is the only one with spmething to lose. The 2010 Debates were the final nail for Brown and is the reason we have a Coalition Government (Clegg won).

So he has weighed up and decided that staying away will be less damaging.

[chrissa1]

Anyone remember JFK debating with Richard Nixon in the early 60's? JFK looked young, fresh and erudite. Nixon looked like a Secondhand Car Salesman with a six o'clock shadow and, shifty.

It was the general consensus that this debate played a large part in JFK being elected.

[woofgang]

I m the public and I couldn't give a toss.

[mikey4444]

Gromit.... "So he has weighed up and decided that staying away will be less damaging"

The Prime Minister of this country is going to refuse to appear in a debate, attended by all the others Party Leaders, and its going to be better for him ?

If this is what his advisers have been telling him, then he needs to change his advisers ! He is being made to look a complete fool, and this will fester until Polling day. He needs to lance the boil and stopped faffing about. He is appearing "frit"

[ToraToraTora]

It will better for the PM Mikey. The broadcasters may actually can the whole idea if the PM does not take part. It will be seen as a farce.

[ichkeria]

Of course the public blame Cameron: he is to blame. And the reason he is not going to be there is because his party had told him they are not going to risk it
That makes sense but they should NOT be allowed to get away with it. It's the sheer dishonesty of all the excuses which is so depressing. If they would just come out and say 'we don't want to be there because we feel we have too much to lose' but of course if he did that it would explicitly make a mockery of his fine words at the last election about the wonder of TV debates and the need for politicians effectively to put themselves at the mercy of the electorate. Very very poor and possibly a miscalculation by them as it may be that they will lose votes because of it

[GustaveH]

Cameron has out-smarted them all!

Under impartiality rules during election time, the broadcasters have to give equal time to the different parties. If Cameron is not in the debates, the rules mean the broadcaster has to give him an equal amount of air time on another show. So the rest will be scrapping it out amongst themselves while Mr Cameron gets his own show to get his points across.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes good point gustaveH

[youngmafbog]

Personally I think they should ban this debates. They are yet another awful idea from the States and I personally dont think they have much of a place in our politics.

Labhour need to be very careful what they say here. There are good political points to be scored but banging on about laws forcing people rather looks like a dictatorial government.

//That makes sense but they should NOT be allowed to get away with it. //

errr ?

[Deskdiary]

"If this is what his advisers have been telling him, then he needs to change his advisers!"

Quite the opposite; he has some very food advisers who have realised that appearing in a debate could come back and bite him on the ***.

If the advisers are the same advisers who advised him not to appear in a "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt, then he should pay heed to them. Milliband and Harperson looked absured, and were made to look even more absurd when it was discovered the t-shirts were made in a sweatshop exploiting women.

These debates don't serve any useful purpose, other than flatter those who have received the better media training. See Nick Clegg.

[ludwig]

I should think Cameron's fairly happy that everyone seems to be obsessed with these stupid debates rather than anything else.

The ones that do participate will probably spend their 5 minutes each (that's about all they'll get) talking about the fact that he isn't there.

[Jackdaw33]

And the public are thirsting for these debates? I'd sooner watch Ant and Dec, and that's saying something!

[ichkeria]

Why are the debates 'stupid' as a matter of interest?
It amuses me that we fetishise the personalities of the party leaders and then we huff and puff about 'presidential' 'US style' debates. When, actually, for once we get some issues debated in a serious manner in a controlled environment. And 20+ million apparently watched last time.

[ToraToraTora]

"For once we get some issues debated in a serious manner in a controlled environment." - if only ichkeria, all we get is spoon fed standard questions from which the politicians can pick their "stock" answers. What we see is each "players" attempt at the standard positions. This is largely the fault of the interviewer and of course invited questions from some sort of audience only slightly removed from the Jeremy Kyle show. This time they have seven "players" so even less exposure for the 2 that matter, no doubt they are delighted to be in among the also rans who take up the time simply because they are there and we must endure their contribution. The only debate remotely worth having is Ed v Dave with no referee just 2 blokes slugging out like we see in every bar in the land. Then the public can see how they both get on in a fight and how secure their views are. What we'll get is a US style panto, worthless.

[ludwig]

// Why are the debates 'stupid' as a matter of interest? //

Because they're a shallow concoction of the TV media, desparate to create an 'event' like it is in the states, or at least create something vaguely interesting to watch, and an excuse to wheel out Dimbleby in the BBC's case.

Nothing useful will be gleaned from them for the voting public, except to know who comes over best on telly in the few words they'll each get to say in the time allowed. Whoever that is will benefit, irrespective of how lame brained and useless his/her party and policies are (see Clegg for details).