'Leadership' 'election' 'debates'

[Machiavelli]

Can someone provide a justification for how Cameron has turned the leadership election debates (with each term devoid of inverted commas/scare quotes) into a farce, especially given what he said prior to the 2010 debates?
If we inhabited a world in which the Tories and their actions were scrutinised critically by the media there would be one hell of a storm brewing about his calculated or arrogant dismissal of these, but we don't, so there isn't.
I await a sufficient explanation, but shan't be holding my breath on this one.

 

[sten_super]

I agree. I think the problem is that quite a few people within the "establishment", including politicians and broadcasters, think that they are a bit unseemly and American, and are therefore not really keen on the whole thing. Thus Cameron has been able to get away with his position more or less unchallenged.

I couldn't believe it when I saw the advert for the Paxman interviews on Channel 4 saying they were 'next Thursday'. That's miles away from the election and makes them entirely pointless IMHO.

 

[Notters]

I agree. I think the problem is that quite a few people within the "establishment", including politicians and broadcasters, think that they are a bit unseemly and American, and are therefore not really keen on the whole thing. Thus Cameron has been able to get away with his position more or less unchallenged.

I couldn't believe it when I saw the advert for the Paxman interviews on Channel 4 saying they were 'next Thursday'. That's miles away from the election and makes them entirely pointless IMHO.

They would have a point. We don't vote for the Prime Minister, we vote for MPs. The only reason for the debates is party politics, and a lot of people hate party politics!

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

I feel like I'm missing something with the debates. Whilst it's obviously an interesting thing to watch, we vote for MP's at a local level as opposed to directly for the PM. It's just going to be the left beating the right (and vice-versa) with the same sticks they normally do.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

I agree, they should play back all his whinging when he wanted them last time and Brown let them happen, sums up politics and being in it for your own good.

It may sway some people to vote for a party that will make it mandatory, I hope he looks a dick when they are being interviewed side by side in the same studio without debating.

 

[Czechmate]

Too Americanised for me , perhaps the programme makers should ask people to phone in and vote at £1.50 a call plus normal call charges to see who wins the debate .

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I don't particularly like the idea of the debates. How can anyone say anything worthwhile when you have 7 people, for example, on the stage for about an hour.

BUT I do think Mr Cameron is bottling this big-time, doesn't want them to happen and is dressing up all his prevarication as "the broadcasters are messing this up."

I also have some sympathy with the view that the broadcasters should have sorted it all a while ago, but for me that is overshadowed by the fact that the prime Minister and his party do not want it/them to happen.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I find it ridiculous that Cameron has bottled a face to face with Milliband. It's also rather pointless to have them before manifestos have been published.

 

[sten_super]

They would have a point. We don't vote for the Prime Minister, we vote for MPs. The only reason for the debates is party politics, and a lot of people hate party politics!

While we all know that's how it works in theory, in practice it seems to me that the vast majority of the electorate vote on a party, rather than MP, basis. The idea of voting for an MP only works if you don't have a party hierarchy in place going into the election, and MPs are forced to stand in certain areas. Otherwise politicians with 'potential' get parachuted into safe seats (where the electorate clearly do vote on the basis of parties rather than MPs) and we know that voting the Conservatives into a majority gets you Cameron, and Labour gets you Milliband (etc etc).

I'm not a particular fan of them, because they are pop politics, and there are very rarely any genuinely challenging questions asked. However it seems that other people are interested in them, and I find this rather high-handed dismissal of them a bit sad and elitist to be honest. All of that notwithstanding, Cameron should at the very least be hauled over the coals for the way he's rather conveniently changed his viewpoint on the usefulness of debates since moving from challenger to incumbant.

 

[Ernest]

Cameron knew he had everything to lose so risked a few bad headlines to bottle out of them, but with that and now his announcing of his resignation he has suddenly become toxic to the Tories

 

[Worried Man Blues]

Manifestos seem fairly pointless as well!

I find it ridiculous that Cameron has bottled a face to face with Milliband. It's also rather pointless to have them before manifestos have been published.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Cameron has bottled it from Ed, so what? Mr Beans' only advantage over the Tories is his skill at PM Questions, so why would Cameron go head to head? Running the country has very little to do with verbal fisticuffs played out in front of the media.

 

[Gwylan]

Cameron has bottled it from Ed, so what? Mr Beans' only advantage over the Tories is his skill at PM Questions, so why would Cameron go head to head?

Quite. If Cameron had gone ahead, he'd have almost certainly come off worst, pulling out may have earned him a few negative headlines but will have done no real damage in the long run: smart politics really

 

[Rookie]

Cameron had nothing to gain from a 1 on 1. It would have been labour knocking every Tory policy while not putting up anything worthwhile themselves and why should the other parties not be given equal air time.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I find it ridiculous that Cameron has bottled a face to face with Milliband.

Same, tho possibly for different reasons. Much as I hate the uber-smarmy face of Cameron, he has nothing to fear from the talking-out-the-side-of-his-mouth Milliband who isn't even the most talented politician in his own family. Everything about him oozes insincerity. Where's the politics of conviction? Sake!

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I don't like the debates at all. Not one bit.


Whether a leader is good on TV, or has the best 'jokes' written for him, doesn't really indicate what is the best choice for the country.

 

[Cullip4]

Cameron has bottled it from Ed, so what? Mr Beans' only advantage over the Tories is his skill at PM Questions, so why would Cameron go head to head? Running the country has very little to do with verbal fisticuffs played out in front of the media.

It should be settled with actual fisticuffs!! I am hoping for the lights to go out as the debate starts, the Undertaker music to start and Cameron to appear behind Milliband in black coat and hat, before challenging him to a ladder match with the keys to number 10 hanging over the ring!

 

[Pavilionaire]

There's been more debate about the non-debate than there would have been about the debate.

 

[Marshy]

I feel like I'm missing something with the debates. Whilst it's obviously an interesting thing to watch, we vote for MP's at a local level as opposed to directly for the PM. It's just going to be the left beating the right (and vice-versa) with the same sticks they normally do.

Do we ?.... I beleive most people vote for the party/leader rather than there local MP....

Exactly what will screw Labour again this time around.

 

[SAC]

it makes Cameron look very shifty when he can't stand the idea of a debate with Miliband. The man lost an argument with a bird from Hear Say.