TV election debates

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30808252

TV election debates.Are you in favour? I certainly am and believe that the Greens (along with UKIP)should be in one of them.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Not being funny, but shouldn't this be in the Politics Forum?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Not being funny, but shouldn't this be in the Politics Forum?

Right you are.Can a Mod move it,please?

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

I'm torn. On the one hand I don't think such an important event should be boiled down to an X-Factor style TV showdown. No TV debate is going to change my mind and the leaders won't say anything that they haven't done before. The 2010 ones were just full of soundbites, everyone got carried away by Nick Clegg and look how he's turned out. On the other hand, they can help to engage more people in the election and spark debate. I don't mind them being on as long as people don't base their decision entirely on a few hours of TV.

I also agree that the Greens should be involved - their lunacy needs exposing.

 

[Ricky Otto]

I'm torn. On the one hand I don't think such an important event should be boiled down to an X-Factor style TV showdown. No TV debate is going to change my mind and the leaders won't say anything that they haven't done before. The 2010 ones were just full of soundbites, everyone got carried away by Nick Clegg and look how he's turned out. On the other hand, they can help to engage more people in the election and spark debate. I don't mind them being on as long as people don't base their decision entirely on a few hours of TV.

I also agree that the Greens should be involved - their lunacy needs exposing.

I get your point, despite being a liberal myself, I thought it was ridiculous that the Lib Dems got such a swing on the basis of Nick Clegg remembering and referring to people in the audience by their first name. I’m sure policy wasn’t the reason people supported the party and it was down to Clegg being likable, the x factor analogy you use is very apt. It’s a difficult one as you want to get politics out there to everyone and have their voice heard but on the other hand they aren’t considering the real issues. It has to be a good thing I think but I get your frustration.

 

[shrimpled]

I get your point, despite being a liberal myself, I thought it was ridiculous that the Lib Dems got such a swing on the basis of Nick Clegg remembering and referring to people in the audience by their first name. I’m sure policy wasn’t the reason people supported the party and it was down to Clegg being likable, the x factor analogy you use is very apt. It’s a difficult one as you want to get politics out there to everyone and have their voice heard but on the other hand they aren’t considering the real issues. It has to be a good thing I think but I get your frustration.

Always worth pointing out that despite the 'swing' towards the Liberals of 1% from 2005 they actually won 5 less seats in 2010.

TV debates inevitably portray the leaders as 'presidents' rather than 'prime ministers'. This plays right into the hands of DC who's current stance on the debates is designed to temper expectations that he should win convincingly before he inevitably does. Labour campaign strategy is to focus as little on EM as possible and fight the election as a party, these debates will not help Ed.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Three excellent posts above. I think Miliband and Clegg have missed a trick by not jumping on Cameron's band wagon over the Greens - makes them both look like they don't care about fellow left of centre parties (splitting the vote perhaps?)
It was down to the TV companies obviously but to omit a party with a standing MP was a mistake and Cameron seized on it.
I agree that Clegg came out well last time around but by jolly he needs to pull something out of the bag this time - the LibDems barely made fourth place in some elections since the last GE. I'd like to see the SNP involved partly to expose them for what they really are as they along with UKIP could well be "king makers" depending on which way the pendulum swings.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Always worth pointing out that despite the 'swing' towards the Liberals of 1% from 2005 they actually won 5 less seats in 2010.

TV debates inevitably portray the leaders as 'presidents' rather than 'prime ministers'. This plays right into the hands of DC who's current stance on the debates is designed to temper expectations that he should win convincingly before he inevitably does. Labour campaign strategy is to focus as little on EM as possible and fight the election as a party, these debates will not help Ed.

I've got news for you.GB elections are always fought on a party basis rather than in Presidential style.

Thus Miliband is only standing for one seat,in Doncaster.It's true he's less popular with the public than Camerson, as a party leader, but so what?

The choice of GB's next PM, remains what it's always been,between Cameron and Miliband.

Cameron stands to lose much more from the debates than any of the other main party candidates.That's why he's playing chicken..

Being an unpopular party leader certainly didn't stop Thatcher getting elected, though.

 

[londonblue]

I've got news for you.GB elections are always fought on a party basis rather than in Presidential style.

Thus Miliband is only standing for one seat,in Doncaster.It's true he's less popular with the public than Camerson, as a party leader, but so what?

The choice of GB's next PM, remains what it's always been,between Cameron and Miliband.

Cameron stands to lose much more from the debates than any of the other main party candidates.That's why he's playing chicken..

Being an unpopular party leader certainly didn't stop Thatcher getting elected, though.

That's been true up until now...ish, but the more we have these TV debate the less that will be true.

I am also torn as to whether or not they're a good idea at all. I understand the argument that hopefully they will engage more people in the political process, and from that standpoint they are a good idea. However, people should vote for a party, not a leader. After all, the leader can be changed without changing the party. Most people in the country should vote for their local MP, or a party. The only people that should be voting for the party leaders are the people in the constituency where they're standing. I fear these debates skew that thinking.

But, given that we look certain to have these debates, I can't understand Camerscum's reticence to join in. He's obviously hiding behind the omission of the Green Party, and seems to be running scared. I don't think he would be scared of debating with EM or NC, which leads me to the conclusion that he doesn't fancy a debate with that loud mouth Farage. After the EU debates Farage had with Clegg I can see why. All Farage did was shout Clegg down. He didn't let him speak, and, IMO, the chair of the debate was too weak to stop it.

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

I think Cameron's playing a blinder. The thought that he is running scared is laughable. He's made Miliband and Clegg look third rate (which they are of course). The Greens should be there to expose their idiotic policies.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Cameron has the most to lose here as he has to defend and justify his actions over the last five years. Far easier for the others, who don't have a record in power to defend. Farage in particular will be licking his lips at the prospect of a tv debate.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think Cameron's playing a blinder. The thought that he is running scared is laughable. He's made Miliband and Clegg look third rate (which they are of course). The Greens should be there to expose their idiotic policies.

Cameron, as an ex-PR man, comes across well on the box.Unfortunately for him, Boy George's failure to fix the deficit (as promised) and the awful prospect of five more years of cuts will lead to the Tories losing power in May.

The Greens are the only political party to have the courage to state openly that they would re-nationalise BR, if elected.

What's idiotic about that?

Even 70% of Tory voters would be quite happy to see BR re-nationalised.(I'd imagine the figure among Labour voters is even higher).

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-natalie-bennett-10-percent-rail-bus-fare-cut

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...015/jan/15/what-are-the-green-partys-policies

 

[Ricky Otto]

Always worth pointing out that despite the 'swing' towards the Liberals of 1% from 2005 they actually won 5 less seats in 2010.

TV debates inevitably portray the leaders as 'presidents' rather than 'prime ministers'. This plays right into the hands of DC who's current stance on the debates is designed to temper expectations that he should win convincingly before he inevitably does. Labour campaign strategy is to focus as little on EM as possible and fight the election as a party, these debates will not help Ed.

Yeah I guess it was the opinion polls where they scored highly, most of those people probably didn't even turn out to vote.

 

[shrimpled]

I've got news for you.GB elections are always fought on a party basis rather than in Presidential style.

Thus Miliband is only standing for one seat,in Doncaster.It's true he's less popular with the public than Camerson, as a party leader, but so what?

The choice of GB's next PM, remains what it's always been,between Cameron and Miliband.

Cameron stands to lose much more from the debates than any of the other main party candidates.That's why he's playing chicken..

Being an unpopular party leader certainly didn't stop Thatcher getting elected, though.

The way elections are won is different from how they are fought.

I'm just saying that the key aspect of Labour's strategy is to focus on the Labour party as being the ruling party, rather than focussing on EM as a potential Prime Minister. That is fact and it is also totally the right way to go about it. I personally do not think it will be enough.

On another tangent, latest figures have UKIP winning 6 seats.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The way elections are won is different from how they are fought.

I'm just saying that the key aspect of Labour's strategy is to focus on the Labour party as being the ruling party, rather than focussing on EM as a potential Prime Minister. That is fact and it is also totally the right way to go about it. I personally do not think it will be enough.

On another tangent, latest figures have UKIP winning 6 seats.

Can you name any post-war, (ie since 1945), G/E that was won in a way that was different from how it was fought?

Btw,which figures exactly are you quoting for "UKIP winning 6 seats"?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30860010

According to Lord Patten, (former Tory party Chairman), Cameron should be more worried about Miliband than Farage.

Quite right too.

 

[shrimpled]

Can you name any post-war, (ie since 1945), G/E that was won in a way that was different from how it was fought?

Btw,which figures exactly are you quoting for "UKIP winning 6 seats"?

Come on, you know how the process works and you know how Governments are formed. I'm merely saying that is sometimes totally at odds with how strategists seek to control the narrative of elections.. Ie, Labour are attempting to frame the election Labour vs Tories, meanwhile the Tories are trying to create a DC vs EM scenario. It's basic, they're trying to create a presidential style election. They're running on a platform of economic competence but their problem is that what they've been doing for the last 3 years and the electorate are getting bored of it somewhat, which will help Labour.

I'm not quoting figures from a publicly available source.

With regards to you other post about DC having more to fear from EM than Farage, you'll be particularly pleased to know that Farage looks set for second place in South Thanet.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Come on, you know how the process works and you know how Governments are formed. I'm merely saying that is sometimes totally at odds with how strategists seek to control the narrative of elections.. Ie, Labour are attempting to frame the election Labour vs Tories, meanwhile the Tories are trying to create a DC vs EM scenario. It's basic, they're trying to create a presidential style election. They're running on a platform of economic competence but their problem is that what they've been doing for the last 3 years and the electorate are getting bored of it somewhat, which will help Labour.

I'm not quoting figures from a publicly available source.

With regards to you other post about DC having more to fear from EM than Farage, you'll be particularly pleased to know that Farage looks set for second place in South Thanet.

I wouldn't jump the gun quite yet with that statement. While you are correct that the wheels have come a bit loose on the Farage band wagon, they haven't come off just yet and remember, a weeks a long time in politics. The best part of five months must be more than a life time.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Actually UKIP didn't need a week. I treat all polls with equal contempt but the Observer/Opinuim poll makes interesting reading, or rather will tomorrow. Remember people, polls in a election year are just a pinch of salt but sometimes they can get the blood racing a little.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Actually UKIP didn't need a week. I treat all polls with equal contempt but the Observer/Opinuim poll makes interesting reading, or rather will tomorrow. Remember people, polls in a election year are just a pinch of salt but sometimes they can get the blood racing a little.

Presumably this is what you're referring to.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ailblock:Editable trailblock - news:Position4

In what way does it make interesting reading?