Cowardly Cameron still trying to duck out of TV Debates

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...ending-not-to/

David Cameron just just chickened out of TV Debates while pretending not to

So David Cameron has made his ‘final offer’, his final condition on which he will or won’t sign up to the TV debates. And it is a clever way of appearing to care about the TV debates while ensuring that they don’t happen at all. In a letter to the BBC tonight, the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications Craig Oliver has said he will only agree to one debate – lasting 90 minutes, between seven party leaders.

And that’s it. Number 10 sources are briefing that the Prime Minister’s rejection of a two-way with Ed Miliband is because we have left the era of two-party politics. Well yes, but we also left the era where no one had a television much longer ago.

No10′s letter says:-

“As well as the Prime Minister, the leaders of the Green Party, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, SNP and UKIP should invited. The leader of the DUP should be allowed to make his case for why he should be involved. If the broadcasters cannot agree amongst themselves who hosts the debate, lots should be drawn, though the debate should be freely available to whoever wants to broadcast it.

“This is our final offer, and to be clear, given the fact this has been a deeply unsatisfactory process and we are within a month of the short campaign, the Prime Minister will not be participating in more than one debate.”

So why isn’t this a proper offer? As Cameron knows, whoever is excluded from the seven-way will kick off with legal action that threatens to scupper the whole thing. Already Sinn Fein has also complained about being excluded from the current proposals. Cameron can just drop his letter in the post and watch the other parties tear it to bits, before gliding on to the election campaign.

And as for Ed Miliband’s offer of a one-to-one debate? No10 has rejected that as well. An unnamed Tory source has this to say:-

‘The idea of a two-party debate sounds like the 1960s and 1970s and won’t work in an era when the broadcasters themselves have designated four parties as ‘major parties’.

And yes, this is the same Tory party that is so fond of telling us that this election comes down to a choice between two people. Ah the games, the games. But the Prime Minister is indeed running chicken from televised debates because he does not believe he will benefit from them. From a campaigning point of view, that is perhaps fair enough, but it is not a fair enough reason for scuppering debates that you once insisted were important for engaging voters and were here to stay. Tonight the Prime Minister may be cancelling any preparation sessions he had booked in for the TV debates, but he also appears rather dismissive of the electorate – and quite arrogant to boot. The only people to come out worse from this are the broadcasters, who have allowed the Prime Minister to wrap them around his little finger.

This guy is a joke.

First he demands the Greens are included as to muffle Farage in the debates. Then as a result, it opens it up to the SNP and Plaid which he then says should be included despite those two parties only standing in a small proportion of all 650 seats across the UK. Then, as a result - which he knew would happen - it then opened it up to legal challenges from the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. NOW he's demanding his own creation of two 7-way debates and one head to head are scrapped in favour of just one 7-way debate. In other words, he's taking the piss.

Cameron might be chicken, but he is not a headless chicken, he knows the television media without exception are Labour supporting, why go into the foxes den.

He does not fear Miliband, he fears Nigel, he saw Nigel eviscerate Clegg and go on to win the Euro election, he is afraid of a similar type of outcome, even if UKIP fail to win as many seats.

It's time to empty seat him.

Thoughts?

[MKR&*42]

Came on here to post this, seen you've (unsurprisingly) beat me

I've never really held a massively strong opinion about Cameron, but this is absolutely taking the piss. Wasn't he the one that complained about the format originally and thus caused all the stir, and now he refuses to participate in 1v1 because of the stir he caused?!

On the BBC News programme they also showed a clip from 2008 debates where Cameron criticised the PM at the time and said "these [parliament] debates aren't comparable to television ones"... then they showed a clip from today/yesterday of him saying "we debate every week in parliament though"???

This whole thing is ridiculous.

[AgnesIO]

If Cameron ducks out of these debates, I am stuck on who to vote for. I won't be voting blue if he ducks.

- - - Updated - - -

First he demands the Greens are included as to muffle Farage in the debates. Then as a result, it opens it up to the SNP and Plaid which he then says should be included despite those two parties only standing in a small proportion of all 650 seats across the UK. Then, as a result - which he knew would happen - it then opened it up to legal challenges from the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. NOW he's demanding his own creation of two 7-way debates and one head to head are scrapped in favour of just one 7-way debate. In other words, he's taking the piss.



It's time to empty seat him.

Thoughts?

Completely agree that Cameron is showing himself up to be a fool. However, you can't question Plaid or SNP based on the number of seats they have in Parliament... if we're judging it based on that, then what on earth are UKIP doing in the debates?

[Alysha]

I wouldn't vote blue, if it was the only party running. If he wants a free for all debate then fine, but he should also accept a 1v1 seeing as those major parties would have more air time then.
I don't really know what his end game is ;/

[-:Undertaker:-]

Completely agree that Cameron is showing himself up to be a fool. However, you can't question Plaid or SNP based on the number of seats they have in Parliament... if we're judging it based on that, then what on earth are UKIP doing in the debates?

I'm not basing on seats purely, it all has to be looked at as a whole - as Ofcom said when deciding what to classify as a main party. Ukip are polling constantly third nationally, although that isn't the case in the regions: Scotland and Wales usually have their own debates from what I know, and the likes of Ukip aren't included in those debates because they're not polling a high enough % in say Scotland or Northern Ireland and that makes sense not to include them. So I don't see why the SNP or Plaid should be included in the overall national Westminster debates when they're not polling anything above 3% nationally (if that).

It is all a mess though, and as you say much of it is of Cameron's own making - especially now when he's got what he wanted.

I've never really held a massively strong opinion about Cameron, but this is absolutely taking the piss. Wasn't he the one that complained about the format originally and thus caused all the stir, and now he refuses to participate in 1v1 because of the stir he caused?!

Aye, in his own words...

“Look, I’ve been calling for these debates for five years, I challenged Blair, I challenged Brown, I challenged when I was ahead in the polls, and when I was behind in the polls. I just think they are a good thing.” – David Cameron, Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2010

[Kyle]

Just yesterday on pmqs he responded to 3 requests to the agreed head to head in April with an offer of a head to head before the campaign begins which milliband seems to have refused. He definitely knows that the Tories are coming under fire regardless of the format but as a leader he should be prepared to defend their position. What a coward! Vote labour!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GommeInc]

This is stupid. He is only digging himself into a pit and will soon find it difficult to get out. He will be mocked for being a coward and he's reaching that point that when he does bother to have a one-to-one debate with Ed he will be mocked throughout it. I can hear Ed saying "Nice of you to work up the courage".

I wish we could elected the PM in this country. Some of the party leaders are so bad for the job it puts you off voting entirely.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is stupid. He is only digging himself into a pit and will soon find it difficult to get out. He will be mocked for being a coward and he's reaching that point that when he does bother to have a one-to-one debate with Ed he will be mocked throughout it. I can hear Ed saying "Nice of you to work up the courage".

I wish we could elected the PM in this country. Some of the party leaders are so bad for the job it puts you off voting entirely.

I actually wish the opposite to be honest, ever since the role of the Prime Minister has been increasingly Presidentialised the quality has dropped more and more so that we've ended up with one bland clone after another. It's probably the case that if a Clement Attlee or Winston Churchill was running for the leadership of either main party today, they wouldn't stand a chance to become PM as Churchill would be thought of as un-prime ministerial in that he was a 'loose cannon' and Attlee for the reason that he wasn't a great speaker or performer at all. Look at Michael Foot too - bonkers - he was principled and intelligent but looked completely unsuitable for the role of Prime Minister next to Margaret Thatcher because he dressed wrong, looked about 100 years old and couldn't string a speech together.

Yet both [Churchill and Attlee] are seen (and rightly whether you agree or disagree with them) as transformational and principled politicians.

[GommeInc]

I actually wish the opposite to be honest, ever since the role of the Prime Minister has been increasingly Presidentialised the quality has dropped more and more so that we've ended up with one bland clone after another. It's probably the case that if a Clement Attlee or Winston Churchill was running for the leadership of either main party today, they wouldn't stand a chance to become PM as Churchill would be thought of as un-prime ministerial in that he was a 'loose cannon' and Attlee for the reason that he wasn't a great speaker or performer at all. Look at Michael Foot too - bonkers - he was principled and intelligent but looked completely unsuitable for the role of Prime Minister next to Margaret Thatcher because he dressed wrong, looked about 100 years old and couldn't string a speech together.

Yet both [Churchill and Attlee] are seen (and rightly whether you agree or disagree with them) as transformational and principled politicians.

I suppose in a way both systems could work. The down side with the part choosing a leader is that they let someone draw the short straw or choose someone out of popularity rather than with capability. Yet with the public choosing you have the other issue of them choosing the wrong person (out of spite or protest, or sheer ignorance).

The ultimate issue just seems to be silly politicians who are career politicians rather than politicians with military, business or other service history. It's a small, exclusive club these days - or that's the impression I'm getting :/

[cooped]

I think Labor are making a mountain out of a molehill with this. David Cameron is in a live TV debate every week on pmqs. In the Grand scheme of things this is a distraction from what we really need to be talking about as a society.