Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Cameron running scared from debate watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...es-andrew-marr

    The Prime Minister has refused to take part in TV debates, using the absence of the Greens as a feeble excuse

    Tory strategists have said in private they want to use the Greens as an excuse to avoid the debates taking place amid fears that they would boost the Ukip leader Nigel Farage.
    What does that say about our Prime Minister?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing we don't already know. He is a coward who has done nothing to improve on the important problems in this county.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    He's bluffing. He wants the Greens present so they take votes from the left of Labour.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...es-andrew-marr

    The Prime Minister has refused to take part in TV debates, using the absence of the Greens as a feeble excuse

    What does that say about our Prime Minister?
    What did it say about Blair?

    Cameron is simply acting strategically. He's being asked to debate with a threat to his right while OFCOM have decided that a threat to Labour's left should not be included.

    I'm sure we will get a debate via the internet broadcast and then the all important Cameron-Miliband debate.

    I also strongly suspect that outside of political circles, people really won't care and so no damage has been done.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    What did it say about Blair?
    Blair actually won elections; his clear mandate came from the British people. How many elections have the Tories won outright since 1992?

    Cameron is simply acting strategically. He's being asked to debate with a threat to his right while OFCOM have decided that a threat to Labour's left should not be included
    Why should the Greens be included? They're a fringe party, if they are included you may as well include the DUP

    Having said that, Ed Miliband is happy to participate whether or not the Greens are present. And Tory sources have made clear that this is all about David Cameron fearing UKIP.

    I also strongly suspect that outside of political circles, people really won't care and so no damage has been done
    You must not have been paying attention to British politics in recent years if you think the debates are irrelevant to the broader population. They are in fact one of the few times when they do pay attention
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    He's bluffing. He wants the Greens present so they take votes from the left of Labour.
    And he's not going to get that, so all he's going to do is look like a coward :lol:

    Besides, Tory sources have made clear that this has nothing to do with the Greens and everything to do with being afraid of Nigel Farage. In a choice between looking whiney and mealy-mouthed, or cowardly, the Tories decided cowardly was better and so they immediately started briefing against their own claimed reason for bottling the debate
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Why should the Greens be included? They're a fringe party, if they are included you may as well include the DUP

    Having said that, Ed Miliband is happy to participate whether or not the Greens are present. And Tory sources have made clear that this is all about David Cameron fearing UKIP.

    You must not have been paying attention to British politics in recent years if you think the debates are irrelevant to the broader population. They are in fact one of the few times when they do pay attention
    Personally I don't care about anything other than the Cameron-Miliband debate so the answer to your question is that they shouldn't.. But debates are not mandatory and OFCOM have made the debates unnecessarily hard for him.

    And there will be a debate. The Telegraph, Guardian and Youtube have already found a way to include the Greens.

    They care about the actual debates, they don't care about arguments over who's involved. This is a country where half the electorate don't know the name of their MP.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    And he's not going to get that, so all he's going to do is look like a coward :lol:

    Besides, Tory sources have made clear that this has nothing to do with the Greens and everything to do with being afraid of Nigel Farage. In a choice between looking whiney and mealy-mouthed, or cowardly, the Tories decided cowardly was better and so they immediately started briefing against their own claimed reason for bottling the debate
    It is not about either the Greens or Farage. It is about the fact that Cameron feels he has more to lose in a debate than win. That is exactly the same position adopted by Blair. In 2010 one had the unusual situation that both Cameron and Brown thought they could improve their positions by debating. The result was they both ended up helping Clegg.

    Alec Douglas Home refused in 1964. Wilson refused in 1966. Thatcher refused in 1979 and 1987. Major refused in 1992 and Blair refused in 1997. The only refusnik who lost was Douglas Home and he was miles behind Wilson as a TV performer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    the prime minister is a prime pussy
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    And he's not going to get that, so all he's going to do is look like a coward :lol:

    Besides, Tory sources have made clear that this has nothing to do with the Greens and everything to do with being afraid of Nigel Farage. In a choice between looking whiney and mealy-mouthed, or cowardly, the Tories decided cowardly was better and so they immediately started briefing against their own claimed reason for bottling the debate
    What tory sources?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The Green party policies are quite sensible, but they dont get a lot of attention like UKIP. If I was Cameron, I would refuse any chance of real debates.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think Cameron will come across very badly in the debate.
    He's a showman, he can make speeches that sound nice and say lovely sounding things like 'we're all in this together' but he's actually a very poor debater.
    Unlike PMQ's he won't have all the backbenchers cheering him on. Whenever Ed asks a legitimate question, Cameron sidesteps it and instead tells an awful joke or just hurls an insult.

    Conversely I think Ed will fare well, he's by far and away the best at Q&A out of the party leaders.
    That's why Cameron doesn't want to take part.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I think Cameron will come across very badly in the debate.
    He's a showman, he can make speeches that sound nice and say lovely sounding things like 'we're all in this together' but he's actually a very poor debater.
    Unlike PMQ's he won't have all the backbenchers cheering him on. Whenever Ed asks a legitimate question, Cameron sidesteps it and instead tells an awful joke or just hurls an insult.

    Conversely I think Ed will fare well, he's by far and away the best at Q&A out of the party leaders.
    That's why Cameron doesn't want to take part.
    Has Ed's negotiation team of Michael Dugher MP and Greg Beales agreed terms with the respective TV companies following their October proposal?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    They are in fact one of the few times when they do pay attention
    They watch. That is very different to paying attention.

    And people distrust all politicians anyway, so involvement or not won't change that.

    And after the "I agree with Nick" debacle at the last election, we the electorate know that, as with any political statement, to take out with a massive pinch of salt.

    Being good in a debate is a nice skill, but ultimately it's got feck all to do with leading a country. I couldn't care less about who's in them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dead sheep eater)
    Nothing we don't already know. He is a coward who has done nothing to improve on the important problems in this county.
    Really?

    Life's quite good at the moment.

    We could have the financial problems that the EU are having.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think Cameron is running scared of the debate, I think he is calculating quite clearly.

    In 2010, Labour were clawing back a lead and may have overtaken the Conservatives in the polls:



    The leaders' debate caused a huge LD spike primarily at the expense of Labour. Cameron eliminated the possibility of a loss to Labour in exchange for a coalition with the Lib Dems.

    Now the Lib Dems are a spent force; Cameron wants another left-wing vote-splitter in the debate. Without them, he will probably beat Miliband but haemorrhage votes to UKIP faster than he gains them from Labour. Since UKIP have had a lot more exposure than the Greens already, he can hope that including both will split more left wing votes off to the Greens than right wing votes off to UKIP.

    Finally if they call his bluff and empty-chair Cameron he gets the best of all possible worlds with a Farage vs Miliband debate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The leaders' debate caused a huge LD spike primarily at the expense of Labour. Cameron eliminated the possibility of a loss to Labour in exchange for a coalition with the Lib Dems.
    The Lib Dems lost seats at the last election you know right?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    The Lib Dems lost seats at the last election you know right?
    Yes, but their share of the vote went up 4ppt. It isn't necessary for the LDs themselves to gain for Labour to lose in a FPTP system.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Yes, but their share of the vote went up 4ppt. It isn't necessary for the LDs themselves to gain for Labour to lose in a FPTP system.
    No, for sure, but they take votes off the Tories too (as you can see from your graph).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    No, for sure, but they take votes off the Tories too (as you can see from your graph).
    That's certainly true and why the Liberal Democrat MP's can be very different in economic views however FPTP essentially works on swings and because of the nature of the 05 election, the Tories saw a net Lib to Con swing in every single English region at the 2010 election probably explaining their lost seats despite higher vote share.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.