I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture0 min ago
Is Cameron Trying To Rescue The Election Campaign For All Concerned?
41 Answers
http://
Standard predictable labelling from the hard of thinking of course but read Nick Robinson's analysis and it may reveal a deeper message from the PM, for example: "None of this will surprise the prime minister. He decided long ago - I first wrote about it in my book, which was published three years ago - that the debates at the last election had sucked the life out of the campaign and given a boost to his opponents. " - I have always thought these debates have no value especially for the main party leaders so why should the PM play along in this exercise in following the US? The whole green party ultimatum was a bit silly though, he should just not join in, end of.
Standard predictable labelling from the hard of thinking of course but read Nick Robinson's analysis and it may reveal a deeper message from the PM, for example: "None of this will surprise the prime minister. He decided long ago - I first wrote about it in my book, which was published three years ago - that the debates at the last election had sucked the life out of the campaign and given a boost to his opponents. " - I have always thought these debates have no value especially for the main party leaders so why should the PM play along in this exercise in following the US? The whole green party ultimatum was a bit silly though, he should just not join in, end of.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And that is the problem, by bringing the greens into the equation he has made it look like he is afraid of Farage, or at least wants to bring some pressure on Ed from the Greens.
Personally I dont really go for these debates, never watched one and never will, however many seem to like them so my suggestion would be:
Debate 1 Head to head with Cameron and Ed, since these are the two that have a chance of forming some sort of Government or coalition
Debate 2 with the also rans who will potentially be part of a coalition. This should also include the SNP since they may well hold the balance of power.
That all seems fair.
Personally I dont really go for these debates, never watched one and never will, however many seem to like them so my suggestion would be:
Debate 1 Head to head with Cameron and Ed, since these are the two that have a chance of forming some sort of Government or coalition
Debate 2 with the also rans who will potentially be part of a coalition. This should also include the SNP since they may well hold the balance of power.
That all seems fair.
Cameron is not afraid of Farage specifically: he's just afraid that the debates will not benefit the party. He and his advisers probably calculate that Miliband can only rise in the public's estimation, ditto Clegg. Understandable but hugely dishonest of him to pretend it's all about the Greens. What nonsense.
At the last election Cameron (then the challenger) talked up the debates as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
So to answer the question: he is trying to rescue the election for the Tories.
At the last election Cameron (then the challenger) talked up the debates as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
So to answer the question: he is trying to rescue the election for the Tories.
// Well gromit the US did it in 1960 then not again till 1976 after it was deemed a failure. //
Not really true. The 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon were a great success. However, by 1964 Johnson who had taken over Kennedy was so fare ahead in the polls, he decided there was nothing to be gained from a debate so opted not to participate. Nixon who had done badly in 1960, chicken out in 1972.
Not really true. The 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon were a great success. However, by 1964 Johnson who had taken over Kennedy was so fare ahead in the polls, he decided there was nothing to be gained from a debate so opted not to participate. Nixon who had done badly in 1960, chicken out in 1972.
The trouble is now he's said he won't do it, he can't come out of it looking good.
If he backs down and takes part, he looks weak, and if he doesn't take part, they'll just go ahead and spend the whole debate talking about how he was too scared to join in. I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC go to the trouble of putting an empty lecturn in place just to emphasise his absence.
The reason Labour and Libs don't want the Greens there of course (and Cameron does) is that they're the people who'll lose votes to the greens, if they should impress the TV audience.
I agree that these debates are pretty worthless. The election becomes about who puts in a good TV performance on a coupel of nights rather than actual policies.
If he backs down and takes part, he looks weak, and if he doesn't take part, they'll just go ahead and spend the whole debate talking about how he was too scared to join in. I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC go to the trouble of putting an empty lecturn in place just to emphasise his absence.
The reason Labour and Libs don't want the Greens there of course (and Cameron does) is that they're the people who'll lose votes to the greens, if they should impress the TV audience.
I agree that these debates are pretty worthless. The election becomes about who puts in a good TV performance on a coupel of nights rather than actual policies.
"he decided there was nothing to be gained from a debate so opted not to participate" - and that is exactly Camerons position. This does not help the party so he'd be silly to do it. Despite the "running scared" comments, there is no point having a fight that you cannot win, better to use a different strategy.
If Cameron does not attend the BBC have 3 choices:
1) go ahead without
2) go ahead without + empty chair
3) cancelthe whole idea
If they do:
1) it'll be pointless and probably not watched except by gromit and mikey and the lib Dem supporter!
2) slightly better than 1 for a TV programs watchability but will anger the PM who may well be PM after the election and in controll of the BBCs funding etc, they may not consider it worth biting the hand that may well be feeding them.
3) Nothing to loose and all the parties will be relieved.
If Cameron holds firm I predict 3)
1) go ahead without
2) go ahead without + empty chair
3) cancelthe whole idea
If they do:
1) it'll be pointless and probably not watched except by gromit and mikey and the lib Dem supporter!
2) slightly better than 1 for a TV programs watchability but will anger the PM who may well be PM after the election and in controll of the BBCs funding etc, they may not consider it worth biting the hand that may well be feeding them.
3) Nothing to loose and all the parties will be relieved.
If Cameron holds firm I predict 3)
Yes Cameron is treading uncomfortable ground at the moment: particularly in accusing Miliband of being scared of the Green Party(!), possibly the most ridiculous accusation yet levelled by either side in the Punch and Judy politics of PMQT.
No doubt though they've calculated that no one will remember this come the election. Even if the debates DO go ahead without him (and I don't mind betting that even if the Green Party were admitted, which they should be, Cameron STILL wouldn't be there) arguably he may have calculated that he and the Tory Party would be seen to be rising above the argy bargy of TV debating.
Bit risky though. You can be sure that were there to be debates with the Greens but not the Tories this incident WOULD be raised in the press.
No doubt though they've calculated that no one will remember this come the election. Even if the debates DO go ahead without him (and I don't mind betting that even if the Green Party were admitted, which they should be, Cameron STILL wouldn't be there) arguably he may have calculated that he and the Tory Party would be seen to be rising above the argy bargy of TV debating.
Bit risky though. You can be sure that were there to be debates with the Greens but not the Tories this incident WOULD be raised in the press.
You missed the "go ahead and invite the Greens" option.
That's the one that should happen. It isn't just the BBC though: there are all sorts of options, involving ITV, Sky, YouTube I think as well.
The OFCOM decision to exclude them was baffling but it is not binding.
Given that, like it or not, the coming election, which more than any election in living memory threatens the main parties, and given that it is likely to be fought on Social media more than any other, Cameron's being seen to run away from TV might not be a good move.
That's the one that should happen. It isn't just the BBC though: there are all sorts of options, involving ITV, Sky, YouTube I think as well.
The OFCOM decision to exclude them was baffling but it is not binding.
Given that, like it or not, the coming election, which more than any election in living memory threatens the main parties, and given that it is likely to be fought on Social media more than any other, Cameron's being seen to run away from TV might not be a good move.
What we should have is an extended BBC Question Time, when all the leaders of the parties are on the panel and forced to answer questions put to them from the voting public. "
Yes that would be a good idea. The operative word being "forced". Until we get that this sort of ducking and diving will continue
Yes that would be a good idea. The operative word being "forced". Until we get that this sort of ducking and diving will continue
It didn't really follow that the debates helped Clegg. At least, not at the polls, when the predicted "surge" didn't really materialise and the voting share for the Lib Dems barely increased -- indeed, they ended up losing seats. The debates this time round might probably have the same, or a similar, sort of effect, namely a quick popularity boost for Farage (and perhaps even the Green Party), that doesn't go all that far at the polls as, overall, voters are likely to have made their minds up anyway.
In the current situation no-one other than Cameron and Miliband has a hope of being PM anyway, so really the debates should consist only of those two, if they happen at all. I actually think that such debates should happen but only as part of a larger change in the way our democracy works.At the moment, our democracy is sitting rather closer to presidential-style politics while at the same time pretending that we're voting for our constituency MP. Really, we ought to make our minds up whether we want to vote for a PM and his party, or for a local MP, and either do away with or strengthen constituency-based politics accordingly.
On a technical point, US voters don't vote for a president either, and the system actually has them voting for the people they want to vote for the president. It's just that in most cases the people who choose the president go the way they're told to go, so that everyone tends to forget the middle men (electoral college) in US elections.
In the current situation no-one other than Cameron and Miliband has a hope of being PM anyway, so really the debates should consist only of those two, if they happen at all. I actually think that such debates should happen but only as part of a larger change in the way our democracy works.At the moment, our democracy is sitting rather closer to presidential-style politics while at the same time pretending that we're voting for our constituency MP. Really, we ought to make our minds up whether we want to vote for a PM and his party, or for a local MP, and either do away with or strengthen constituency-based politics accordingly.
On a technical point, US voters don't vote for a president either, and the system actually has them voting for the people they want to vote for the president. It's just that in most cases the people who choose the president go the way they're told to go, so that everyone tends to forget the middle men (electoral college) in US elections.
TTT...I think dave has made a mistake here, and I fully expect him to realise it, and change his mind. If he is any difficulty with understanding this situation, the Tory Men in Grey Suits will be only too happy to explain things for him !
What real difference would it make if the Greens took part in one of these TV debates or not ? While most of us would agree with some of their policies, they are hardly going to set the world alight this May are they ?
Anyway, why stop at the Greens ? Why not invite Plaid Cymru as well ? After all, they have 3 sitting MPs in Westminster, 11 AM's in Cardiff, and 1 MEP in Brussels. I could similar cases for the NI lot, and the SNP.
If every Party Leader was invited into the TV studios for these debates, then it would resemble a bear garden, in full flow !
dave is making a fool of himself at present, and needs to reassess pretty quick, before real damage is done to him and his Party.
What real difference would it make if the Greens took part in one of these TV debates or not ? While most of us would agree with some of their policies, they are hardly going to set the world alight this May are they ?
Anyway, why stop at the Greens ? Why not invite Plaid Cymru as well ? After all, they have 3 sitting MPs in Westminster, 11 AM's in Cardiff, and 1 MEP in Brussels. I could similar cases for the NI lot, and the SNP.
If every Party Leader was invited into the TV studios for these debates, then it would resemble a bear garden, in full flow !
dave is making a fool of himself at present, and needs to reassess pretty quick, before real damage is done to him and his Party.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.