Tags
(not satire – it’s the Tories!)
Oh dear.
Looks like Cameron has made a BIG tactical mistake by trying to bully broadcasters and the other political parties into dropping the TV election debates.
The BBC, Sky, Channel 4 and ITV have today written to Cameron, effectively calling his bluff and telling him in no uncertain terms the planned debates are going to go ahead – with or without him.
Cameron now has a choice of either looking completely frit by being ’empty-chaired’ in the debates – which are watched by tens of millions of voters – or look weak and face extreme embarrassment by backing down.
Which is exactly the kind of dilemma that can eventually happen to arrogant bullies like Cameron used to browbeating people into having his own way.
Here’s the letter to Cameron’s director of communications Craig Oliver from Sky, BBC, ITV and Channel 4 in full:
Dear Craig
Thank you for your letter of 4th March.
We are responding as the broadcasters’ group and as you released your letter to the press we will be making this response public too.
The broadcasters have over the past six months worked hard to ensure that our viewers have the opportunity to watch election debates in 2015.
We have done so in an independent, impartial manner, treating invited parties on an equitable basis. We have listened to the views expressed by all parties and, as we promised from the outset, have kept evidence about electoral support, public attitudes to the debates and appropriate participation under review.
The debates were enormously well received by 22 million viewers in 2010 and our research has shown that there is a public desire and a public expectation for debates in 2015.
We have consistently set out our intention to hold three debates during the unusually long formal election campaign period – 30th March to 7th May 2015. We spaced the planned debates two weeks apart, twice the length of time between debates as compared to 2010. The dates – 2nd April, 16th April and 30th April – were first published in October 2014 and have not been changed.
We believe that the formal election period is the right time to hold election debates. It is the point at which the parties have published their election manifestos and the point at which the electorate as a whole is most engaged with discussion of election issues and the public debate about the future of the country.
In October we proposed one head-to-head debate between the two leaders who could realistically become Prime Minister and two debates between more parties. We listened to all parties’ views on the proposals – both those initially invited and others – and we reviewed the developing evidence on electoral support and public attitudes to the debates.
In discussions the Conservatives argued for a more inclusive set of debates and in particular called for the inclusion of the Greens. We listened to that argument and to others expressed by other parties and by members of the public. We considered evidence of increased electoral support for some parties – notably the SNP and to some degree the Greens – and looked at some evidence that there was public support for a more inclusive format in the debates.
Taking into account all these factors, we made a decision to adjust our proposal to make it even more inclusive – keeping the two party head-to-head debate but expanding the two multi-party debates to include all the main choices available to voters in England, Wales and Scotland. The parties included were: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
Separately, it was confirmed that BBC Northern Ireland and UTV were planning debates including all the five separate major parties in Northern Ireland – DUP, Sinn Fein, UUP, SDLP and the Alliance Party.
The two sets of debates would enable all voters in the United Kingdom to see debates with the leaders of the main choices they were able to vote for.
We noted the Conservatives’ initial welcoming tone for our amended proposal.
On the basis of this proposal – first tabled in October – and amended to take into account changing facts and input from parties, notably including the Conservatives, we have conducted numerous meetings and conversations with representatives of all parties invited. These have taken place in an organised manner, following clear agendas and in a generally good atmosphere.
We have listened to the views of all parties as we’ve framed the rules for the 2015 debates. The draft rules which all parties have been given are based on the 2010 rules, amended for the changed circumstances of 2015 and in particular the potential participation of seven parties.
The plan – as you know – for the multi-party debates has been for two 2 hour debates, allowing sufficient time across the two programmes for all seven leaders to participate in a full discussion on a good range of the really big issues facing the country at this election.
The leaders would have the opportunity to address questions posed by the studio audience. The format would allow them to give an uninterrupted answer to the question and then would open up the debate to a moderated discussion between the leaders for up to around 17 to 18 minutes on each question. We think this format, over the course of the two multi-party debates, will allow a proper discussion across a good range of subjects. It does, however, require two debates and a substantial allocation of time to each programme.
Once we have received any further comments from the parties on our draft detailed arrangements we will publish the arrangements as we did in 2010.
This process has all happened in a very orderly manner and we’re grateful to representatives of all the parties who’ve engaged constructively with us.
On 4th March you wrote to us tabling an idea that you had not raised in the previous six months of discussions.
There are elements of it which we welcome and elements which we don’t believe have been fully thought through.
The Conservative Party proposal – as we understand it – is for:
:: One debate
:: 90 minutes in duration
:: Involving seven parties
:: The DUP should be allowed to make its case to be included
:: It should take place in the week of 23rd March
The letter makes no mention of the head-to-head debate which we had previously understood the Conservatives were in favour of.
We believe the proposal for just one debate of 90 minutes duration is insufficient to cover the main election issues with seven participants. Our 2 x 2 hour debates format will allow all seven leaders sufficient time to discuss properly a good range of the main election issues. One 90 minute debate with seven leaders would inevitably lead to much less ground being covered, with much shorter contributions from all involved.
We welcome the fact that the Conservatives propose the same seven parties included in our plans. We have included all the main parties available as choices to all voters in England, Scotland and Wales.
We note that you say the DUP should be allowed to make its case to be included. We have already considered the DUP’s case very thoroughly. We have responded to the DUP saying that we do not believe there is any obligation on us to invite the DUP or any other Northern Ireland party to take part. It would be unfair and partial to invite the DUP and not the other four major parties in Northern Ireland. We believe voters in Northern Ireland will be well served by the BBC Northern Ireland and UTV debates. The party systems in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain are different and our debates plan reflects that.
We welcome the fact that you have for the first time in six months indicated a seven day period in which the Conservatives would definitely join a debate.
We have given your proposal serious consideration but we don’t think it achieves the goal of providing our viewers with election debates that can properly explore a reasonably full range of issues.
We do, however, welcome the positive elements of your letter.
In light of that we propose the following:
We will continue to plan for the three TV debates on 2nd April, 16th April and 30th April as discussed extensively with all parties.
Sky and Channel 4 have already said they are prepared to host the two party debate on a different date if the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties can agree. Failing that the broadcaster preparations will continue for 30th April.
The ITV debate on 2nd April and the BBC debate on 16th April will be produced and broadcast as planned. They will both be scheduled for 2 hours in peak time starting at 8pm.
The debate on 2nd April is just four days later than the period in which you have expressed a desire to debate and is more than a month before the election.
We very much hope that all invited leaders will participate in the broadcast debates. However, in the end all we can do – as impartial public service broadcasters – is to provide a fair forum for debates to take place. It will always remain the decision of individual leaders whether or not to take part.
The debates will go ahead and we anticipate millions of viewers will find them valuable as they did in 2010. Our invitations will remain open to all the invited leaders right up to broadcast. We’ll set no deadlines for final responses. We very much hope all the leaders will participate.
The Heads of News of all four broadcasters would welcome the opportunity to meet Mr Cameron, or his representative, to discuss the debates.
Yours sincerely,
Sue Inglish (BBC)
Michael Jermey (ITV)
Dorothy Byrne (Channel 4)
Jonathan Levy (Sky)
.
Please feel free to comment. And share.
aturtle05 said:
Simple answer – cancel them all! This is not the United States of America, we do not have a two-party system, we have too many parties trying to gain as many seats as possible.
I did not watch them in 2010 and I will not watch them in 2015. It’s a TV Popularity show, “Vote for me, I look best on telly! When I win on TV I won’t explain anything anyway, just slag off the policies of the other candidates”.
LikeLike
Gary said:
Mr Cameron did exactly the same a few months ago in the Scottish referendum debate. Despite his earlier bravado he refused to have any part of any debate. Instead he left it to Alistair Darling who, even his best friends would admit, is not over endowed with charisma. In 2010 Gordon Brown was a sitting duck, the world banking crash, various disasters in Britain not of his making and he neither looked, nor sounded like the stereotypical Eton educated toff cum politician. Now Cameron is on the defensive all he can do is to try to damage Ed Milliband’s standing by creating the impression he is utterly ineffectual. Personally I could do without these debates. There’s little for the electorate to gain..
LikeLike
wildthing666 said:
The leaders would have the opportunity to address questions posed by the studio audience.
These debates are question time for party leaders where they pick the questions they will answer I would like to see no pre screened questions and people free to ask a question related to responses given we all saw in 2010 the party leaders referring to sheets and changing pages occasionally. Do they think the electorate is stupid?
LikeLike
sdbast said:
Reblogged this on sdbast.
LikeLike
jaypot2012 said:
Don’t watch tv at all so wouldn’t be watching any of these debates. Really love the way Cameron has been portrayed as a chicken – ‘cos he is 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
jaypot2012 said:
Reblogged this on Jay's Journal.
LikeLike
Gracie Samuels said:
I’m glad broadcasters are holding firm. I want to see these debates, I watched them last time and found them to be very interesting, especially after at any given time being able to hold Cameron to account with video footage of his blatant lies.
I note that some people like aturtle05 object to them strongly and yet fully admits to not watching them last time! How can you have an informed opinion of you have not watched them?
It seems to me that those with an axe to grind with Labour and those with unjustified personally grudges against Ed Miliband, are the ones who are objecting most strongly, why is that?
Cameron tried to play games, he tried to manipulate the whole process. He thought he could get away with abusing his power to get what he wants and it has blown up in his face and the broadcasters have called his bluff and no matter what happens now, he is left looking weak and marginalised, arrogant and totally stupid. His lack of judgement is once again on show for all to see. There is no way this man should hold high office, he is as bent as a nine bob note.
LikeLike
Gracie Samuels said:
If Ed Miliband gets 90 minutes of prime time TV during the election campaign,
where he can take questions from the public and talk directly back to them without the Tory press being able to misrepresent what he has said, present him as “weird” or refer to him eating a sandwich and generally act like puerile idiots, this could prove a real game changer. I know from experience that those who have listened to Ed Miliband have gone in being apprehensive and come away being highly impressed. If Cameron doesn’t debate Ed Miliband, he has just given a huge pre election day gift.
Lynton Crosby has been a dreadful adviser so far, all his election posters have bombed, he is running a highly negative and vindictive personalised campaign, he has zero new ideas and is running a campaign based on a previous one he ran years ago. Looks like things are not going as planned!
LikeLike
beastrabban said:
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
This is excellent news, as at last the broadcasters have shown that they are not totally the Tories’ lap dogs. They have stood up to Cameron’s demands for a single 90 minute debate, and stated that they will instead be holding two two-hour debates instead. they have also rejected his demand that the DUP be included in the debates on this side of the Irish Sea on the entirely just grounds that it would be unfair and prejudicial to the other Northern Irish parties. As Johnny Void points out, Cameron can now accede to these demands, and look weak, or he can not turn up. In which case, he looks frit. But no doubt Lynton Crosby is trying to hatch an alternative plan as I type, to try and get his master out of it while making it look like all the fault of the broadcasters.
Never mind: Cameron is frit. For a start, Ed Miliband, for all his ‘geekiness’, is an intellectual from an intellectual family. Cameron, however, is simply a Toff with an expensive education. And it’s no wonder he does not want a longer debate with Miliband or with any of the other opposing parties. A shorter debate, with multiple candidates, is far too short a time to give lengthy, reasoned answers. It is, however, just the right amount of time to come out with short, pithy soundbites. Which pretty much follows the advice Goebbels gave to forming emotive slogans for the Nazi party. Keep it short and make it memorable. Longer debates, where you can fall back on the political equivalent of advertising slogans, means that Cameron’s far more likely to show his intellectual shallows.
And the number of parties competing in these debates now mean that the odds are stacked against him. He might do well against one or two, but the odds lengthen as he goes on until sooner or later, one of them will prove the better debater. And if he comes up against the SNP, it’s pretty much a certainty that he’ll come a cropper north of the border. All they have to do to win over patriotic Scots is simply point at him and say: ‘Sassenach toff. Case proven, your honour’. Compared to Cameron, even Rab C. Nesbitt’s pervy crony Jamesie Cottar looks good.
LikeLike
Tommaz Jay said:
For once in nearly five years we see the tory’s slithering back under the stone that they came out from under in 2010.
LikeLike
bobchewie said:
maybe Cameron is waiting for a company to sponsor him. So he can plug their product
LikeLike
tunefultony said:
Chicken-hearted David Cameron’s behaviour is nothing short of a clucking [sic] disgrace. He has tried to bully the debate-friendly TV Companies and ended up making a right bulls-up [sic] of it all. But I believe the debates should go ahead. Perhaps instead of in a sterile studio setting the debates could be held outside in a green meadow setting with a participating audience of bulls and cows [“I MOOVE to second that resolution!” –and so on and David Cameron’s absence could be represented by a farm scare-crow??
LikeLiked by 1 person
tunefultony said:
bob chewie: Chew on this: BBC NEWS – YORK:: “Cow Stampede Through Harrogate Cul-De-Sac” [11 July, 2012]…
North Yorkshire Police, who suspect a deadly planned conspiracy by Islamic bovine militants, have instructed their forensic investigators to take measurements of hoofprints in residents’ lawns and gardens….. the hunt for the assailants continues…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chris said:
With the Tories missing, then there could be coverage being denied to the
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coaliton (TUSC)
who have reached the fair media coverage threshold of running in over 1/6th of the MP seats in the generale election.
But TUSC is getting absolutely nil media coverage at all.
TUSC is old school Labour having those ex Labour MPs and councillors as candidates, sacked by Labour for voting against austerity cuts.
The poor of all ages from the mothers of babes in womb to grannies denies state pension or threatened with cuts to current state pensons by the Tories, have parties to vote for, but are denied knowledge of them, by anything written in newspapers, blogs, forums, or on TV.
There is for the first time Class War candidates – double dole and pension.
TUSC is running 111 MP candidates and do not bash the votes of the poor grey vote, but in their policies have:
TUSC general policies I like are:
– Restore the pre-Thatcher real value of pensions.
– Reverse the increases imposed on the state retirement age, creating jobs for younger people.
TUSC and Class War are natural allies of Labour, who, by itself, will not get enough votes to form anything but a severe hung parliament.
There is talk of a Labour and Tory coalition.
TUSC or Class War
could win in Tory and Lib Dem marginals
with slim majorities in 2010 by the sitting MP,
because a lot of these voting areas
have thousands more poor voters, in or out of work, of all ages
than any other income level.
In blogs it is said Universal Credit (replacing around 6 benefits) will have
indefinite sanctions because the hardship payments
will not be a reduced benefit but a loan,
where once back on benefit the repayments will be directly deducted
from any such benefit.
So nil food money either way.
UC rules means if one partner is below the raised retirement age,
then the other partner may have to wait to 73 or even 76 for state pension payout. That is what these men are being told by government.
UC appears to effect housing benefit.
So nil benefit, nil job, nil disability money, nil state pension for the poorest people.
Labour would do better to fund the electioneering ads of
TUSC and Class War and Mebyon Kernow in Cornwall
in Lib Dem and Tory marginals with slim majorities,
so as to gain these extra MPs to form an unassailable majority
in Westminster UK’s parliament.
Multi party coalitions have worked for many years in Europe, even before EU membership.
When will blogs give equal coverage then to Class War and TUSC posts?
http://www.anastasia-england.me.uk
LikeLike
A6er said:
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
LikeLike
bobchewie said:
The annoying reality is that whoever gets to run the country all decisions and laws get made on behalf of the wealthy corporate lobbyists who have been pretty much running the whole shebang and the fact that we are not allowed to know who these people are. This seen against this new law which prevents charities and campaigners who are not allowed to campaign against government policies makes you wonder why people should vote. The electorate are just a means to the end which is having business own and run everything
LikeLike
bobchewie said:
Can that be checked? All laws that were introduced and who and which company was lobbying Govt and politicians prior to those laws being introduced?
LikeLike
bobchewie said:
Think tanks sponsored by companies come up with proposals and submit it to Govt then hey presto companies lobby to get contracts based on those proposals
It’s all a bit coincidental isn’t it?
LikeLike
bobchewie said:
@tony what about a ringleader there is always a ringleader in everything or a mastermind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bobchewie said:
@tony I really think that Cameron is a COW ard and COWtoing to someone in charge
LikeLiked by 1 person
bobchewie said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9639767/Cow-kills-butcher-during-Islamic-Eid-festival.html
COW KILLS BUTCHER DURING ISLAMIC FESTIVAL.
NO DOUBT HAD HELP BY CIA
LikeLiked by 1 person
bobchewie said:
I think I can figure this out now
Cows have been trained to attack islamic extremist vehicles that try to hide away in cowsheds.
Now it all makes sense
LikeLiked by 1 person