Cameron a chicken?

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
Strange...

Surely the correct response is to say how disappointed you are by Ofcom, but to say that you wish to offer the British people the chance to join in the debate and present them with a choice etc. All the broadcasters need do now is call his bluff, or even better, say that they're very confident Nick Clegg can represent the government of the last 5 years that he's asking us to re-elect. If they do that, Cameron (unless he wants to debate head to head with Caroline Lucas) is going to be forced into backing down unless he really wants to allow Farage the chance to appeal to the rightist vote on prime time for 3 nights in 3 weeks. Who the hell is advising Cameron these days? Not a cat in hells chance Andy Coulson would have advised on taking this stand

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30726499
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, whoever is advising his is being pretty smart. Cameron is making sure he has the Green's onside if they need to form a coalition, and it's possible a couple of seats could be important.
 
You are joking right? There is simply no way that Cameron could form anything remotely close to a functioning coalition if he's relying on green support. If that's truly the level of his calculation, then Farage is right, he's getting desperate. The Greens would probably fall apart as a party anyway if they were having to prop up a Tory government so their participation would be a long way from being guaranteed. Just think that through Paul and hopefully you'll see the absurdity of your suggestion. Two seats max (more likely one as Lucas's own majority is small). How long (with all the fruitbats on the conservative backbench that there are) do you seriously think this coalition of yours could last? What would happen the first time a pro European vote was required? Cameron would be better off calling an immediate election within 3 weeks rather than trying to lumber on with Caroline Lucas pulling his strings. Remember the thing that stopped Labour trying to patch up a rainbow coalition of Liberals and nationalists at the last election was the realisation that they couldn't make it work in practise, even if they could in numerical theory. If that is the level of Conservative strategic thinking then my bet on Osborne has had it. Miliband will be PM first

His best bet would be try and present a populist Queens speech and hope to get defeated and then turn round and ask for a mandate again. If Labour has got any sense, they'll go for the high moral ground and abstain on the vote and therefore allow him to flap about for 3-6 months in an ever increasing tumult of chaos trying to patch up an unworkable arrangement. Ultimately he'll be defeated at the first by-election if he hasn't given up trying to make this work by then anyway.

All the broadcasters do now is say we're beholden to Ofcom (which they are) and that Cameron has left the field (he actually looks as if he's trying to interfere with a free media). You could always stick a grinning space hopper in his place I suppose but for someone who lobbied so hard in opposition for debates he's going to look a grade 'A' hypocrite in government (especially as this'll be the third one he's ducked). Remember Nicola Sturgeon threatened to duck George Galloway recently before recognising she couldn't

There's two options

1: He get's his way and the Greens are included (expect the Scottish, Welsh and Irish parties to ask for inclusion on grounds of the fact they have more MP's)
2: The broadcasters and Ofcom hold the line and Cameron under pressure from his own party has to come back with his tail between his legs looking rather stupid

Do you seriosuly think Conservatives defending small majorities are going to line up behind their leader making a stand of principle on behalf of the Greens? Oh come on. They're going to be furious that their leader isn't even prepared to go in front of the country and make a defence of their seats for them. Miliband, Clegg and Farage will lampoon and ridicule him in his absence, and Farage will exploit his platform as the voice of the right and present himself as the person who is in touch and not aloof. Cameron will have no right of reply on the night and will be forced into playing catch up the next morning when all the coverage is about the other three parties

He'll take part OK, the only issue is whether he does so with the Greens or not
 
Last edited:
I don't get it. No one can say it's anything but a fair call from Cameron. I think there are any number of reasons why the greens are entitled to be there and yes, it is right that there is alternative focus on the left.

this is far from Cameron losing it.
 
Two different things really Clive. You're suggesting it's a matter of principle. Paul's suggesting it's a matter of sound tactical judgement.

I think the correct response from Cameron would have been the one I suggested. Feign indignation and suck up to the Greens presenting yourself as an accommodating man of reason, but also acknowledge that you should respect Ofcom's decision however much you disagree with it. To some extent you achieve Paul's objective (though heaven knows what your coalition would look like if you needed the Greens). You also ensure that you maintain your place at the podium. If the broadcasters and Ofcom hold their position and Cameron is forced into a u-turn (and he will be) then he's going to look damaged. He'll be a man who called it out and lost.

He's taking a totally unnecessary risk by making his participation conditional on theirs. The broadcasters will know that, and it's got to be one of the easiest bluffs to call (unless he's got leverage over something I'm unaware of)
 
I'm fuming at the ec thread and will go completely off subject. Accusations of baiting there from those who enthusiastically contributed to a thread that was set up with pure intention of baiting. Two faced cnts.

the broadcasters also know that they need him. I don't actually believe it's about an alliance with them because the seats aren't there, but I think it's about making sure there is a critical voice on the left as there will be with ukip on the right. It's a fair call as I said.

also there maybe a smart element of reaching out to the electorate and stating that the greens "deserve a voice". Good move
 
Can the broadcasters disregard an Ofcom ruling? I don't know. If they are beholden to it though, then Cameron's batted himself into an unnecessary corner by making it an ultimatium that he can't get out of without a retreat or a change of ruling from Ofcom. What is he going to say to the first backbencher (take Anna Sourbry as an example). She's a got a small majority and has supported him loyally for five years. What's he supposed to tell her when she asks for his support in retaining her seat and he says he's prioritised Caroline Lucas?

I think there's some sub-plots (hell I've been trying to think of them). Sky and ITV will want him there as they support him. The BBC will normally kow tow to the government of the day. It's always possible that Lucas as a legitimate voice of the Greens could pour a degree of cold water on Miliband (a former Secretary of State for the Environment) that Cameron no longer can now that his 2 minute husky sled stunt in Spitzbergen has long passed its sell by date and his claim to be greenest government in history is lying in tatters

Oh .... take my advice on this one Clive. Try and move seamlessly between threads. For some reason (possibly because I don't necessarily care that much) I can these days. I can argue with someone like yourself very easily on one thread whilst agreeing with you on another. Treat each one as separate entity and you'd be amazed how little residual dislike for an individual you carry over
 
Last edited:
Cameron does have a bad habit of shooting from the hip without thinking things through. It might be that and I don't know about ofgem. Interesting to see what happens.
 
Actually there is another point to this Cameron misjudgement. Leaving aside the Sourbry scenario (I'm sure he can write her vote off the first time he's challenged for the leadership) but then he's been accussed a few times of only listening to a small band of Etonians rather than his backbenchers. What if Paul's unlikely scenario comes to pass

It's election morning. David Cameron has sat out the three televised debates and a number of conservatives have lost marginals, but with 2 seats the Greens do indeed hold the balance. Who in the Tory party is going to hearld him as a strategic genius? No one is my guess. They're going to call him an absolute idiot and quickly extrapolate that had he taken part they'd have something of a small working majority. He'll do well to survive 6 months as leader and having failed to support departed backbenchers, those left will move quickly to replace him with someone they feel they can trust
 
Last edited:
Well tonight's reporting of the chicken run didn't look good for him. If I were the Tory strategists I'd be having a fast rethink on this one

Nick Clegg was openly laughing at him and suggesting he was offending the whole democratic process by refusing to take part
Nigel Farage used the 'c' word on him (chicken)
Ed Miliband called him out and actually sounded convincing. He too used the C word
and Nick Robinson is left to ponder whether the Prime Minister would rather not duck out of the whole thing (planted the idea in the viewers head that he was chickening out)

Robinson did attempt some balance by suggesting that the PM thinks the debate might get in the way of the campaign, but it was limp. If he reverses his decision quickly, he won't become an issue, but if he let's it hang, it's going to be used against him. His own backbenchers and party managers are going to be pretty furious with him I reckon. They won't take much more of Ed Miliband (of all people) calling him a chicken, and Clegg openly laughing at him. This is the man who thinks he's going to renegotiate Lisbon. Farage will be creaming it.

I'm actually starting to suspect that Cameron is genuinely scared of Farage on this format. Farage has nothing to lose really and can deliver the sort of maverick performance that Ross Perot did on George H Bush. He's going to be comparatively unrestrained by protocols and will be able to use the sorts of populist language that Cameron did 5 years ago. Bullies don't like it coming at them and there is a bit of me wondering if he's desperate to avoid being compared to Farage by his own party. He ducked the Euro debate when Clegg to his credit stood up. He ducked the Scottish one (for good reasons mind you). He can't expect to duck another round and retain his credibility. Nah... he's got to participate, the only question is whether he does so with or without his sudden conversion to the Green party

I don't know what the rules are in truth and probably jumped the gun, but I can't for the life of me see how a broadcaster of election coverage if they're told to do one thing by a regulator can then refuse, and do another.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
I'm fuming at the ec thread and will go completely off subject. Accusations of baiting there from those who enthusiastically contributed to a thread that was set up with pure intention of baiting. Two faced cnts.
Click to expand...

I hope that comment wasn't aimed at me.
 
Alun, I make the comment regarding the Green vote based on my experience of coalition governments formed in the last two Australian elections. Rudd needed the Greens to form a government, and this time around Abbott is pandering to Clive Palmer (Palmer United set up by Palmer in the last two years), who is an absolute nut job, with the balance of power being held by one seat which happens to be a minority wacko party.

Cameron knows this is a possibility here given the lead up to the election is likely to see some weaker seats, and possibly some regarded as safer being attacked by UKIP splintering the conservative vote.

He will not want to relinquish power even in an uneasy coalition, and a small number of seats could well be important if he can't rely on support from the Libs who will likely be looking to whore themselves once again.
 
Last edited:
So you seriosuly think the possibility of 1 or 2 seats with the Greens is justification for refusing to take part in three prime time debates and allowing an unopposed floor (and the morning after analysis shows) to the opposition? That's just mental.

Surely you can see that if he needs these votes (the greens), his own party are going to have him out within a flash as they'll quickly deduce that they'd have won an overall majority had he participated. They're going to feel massively let down. In any event, his coalition wouldn't last. The first UKIP defection, by-election death, Ulster Unionist fracture, and it's all over (and that's provided he can keep them all out of prison too).

The most he could hope for would be to make a populist Queens speech, get defeated, and then go back to the country with a programme that he's asking for an endorsement on

Also we've got 650 seats with a speaker having a casting vote if needed (the speaker is expected by conevntion to vote for the government). The Australian example simply doesn't apply. Their constituencies are much bigger and at the moment at least, the arithmetic much more predictable and less volatile

The more I think about it, I think he's genuinely scared of being compared unfavorably alongside Farage
 
Cameron's real motive might be to allow the LibDems, Labour and UKIP to crack-on without him.....allowing all three to demonstrate how unelectable they are, on National TV.

These debates are an exercise in damage-limitation. They never deliver a winning-punch, and are all about trying desperately not to make a cu*nt of things. In that sense, they are really for avoiding if you can manage it. It's a clever tactic from Cameron's mob, because it leaves the opposition confused and unsure of where they stand, and there's very little in the way of downside - other than a few rocks thrown from the party leaders, none if which will leave a mark.
 
Warbler said:
So you seriosuly think the possibility of 1 or 2 seats with the Greens is justification for refusing to take part in three prime time debates and allowing an unopposed floor (and the morning after analysis shows) to the opposition? That's just mental.

Surely you can see that if he needs these votes (the greens), his own party are going to have him out within a flash as they'll quickly deduce that they'd have won an overall majority had he participated. They're going to feel massively let down. In any event, his coalition wouldn't last. The first UKIP defection, by-election death, Ulster Unionist fracture, and it's all over (and that's provided he can keep them all out of prison too).

The most he could hope for would be to make a populist Queens speech, get defeated, and then go back to the country with a programme that he's asking for an endorsement on

Also we've got 650 seats with a speaker having a casting vote if needed (the speaker is expected by conevntion to vote for the government). The Australian example simply doesn't apply. Their constituencies are much bigger and at the moment at least, the arithmetic much more predictable and less volatile

The more I think about it, I think he's genuinely scared of being compared unfavorably alongside Farage
Click to expand...

I get your point and don't completely disagree. However in the event of a hung Parliament the collection of seats is important and, depending how close, minority parties such as the Greens could potentially become important particularly, and certainly so if the Libs switch to Labour. In the scenario that the Greens held the balance of power they would take what they can and enjoy the opportunity to build profile with their time in the spotlight.

So let's paint the hung Parliament scenario then. Who in your opinion will side up with who? Is it really so fanciful to think that minority party support could become important? And why would the Conservatives want Cameron out in this scenario when it's a distinct possibility pre-election? Surely not needing the Libs to form a Government next time is a more successful return is it not? And if he needed to go back to the Country in those circumstances why wouldn't he, rather than hand power over to a Labour coalition!

Two points I have to completely disagree with. Are you seriously suggesting his reasoning here is because he fears Farage! And you are way off the mark with the Australian political landscape which is far more volatile than our own with balance of power at the last two elections being held by minority parties in much the same scenario above, only in the Australian case nutjob fringe parties.
 
Grasshopper said:
Cameron's real motive might be to allow the LibDems, Labour and UKIP to crack-on without him.....allowing all three to demonstrate how unelectable they are, on National TV.

These debates are an exercise in damage-limitation. They never deliver a winning-punch, and are all about trying desperately not to make a cu*nt of things. In that sense, they are really for avoiding if you can manage it. It's a clever tactic from Cameron's mob, because it leaves the opposition confused and unsure of where they stand, and there's very little in the way of downside - other than a few rocks thrown from the party leaders, none if which will leave a mark.
Click to expand...

Possibly. It would be a huge gamble though because it could and probably would turn into an orchestrated Tory rock throwing exercise which could be damaging.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Cameron's real motive might be to allow the LibDems, Labour and UKIP to crack-on without him.....allowing all three to demonstrate how unelectable they are, on National TV.

These debates are an exercise in damage-limitation. They never deliver a winning-punch, and are all about trying desperately not to make a cu*nt of things. In that sense, they are really for avoiding if you can manage it. It's a clever tactic from Cameron's mob, because it leaves the opposition confused and unsure of where they stand, and there's very little in the way of downside - other than a few rocks thrown from the party leaders, none if which will leave a mark.
Click to expand...

For all his faults, hes smart and a strong debater. Might not have a manner that appeals to everyone but hes convincing as a leader.

I think Clegg is often harshly judged but Cameron has nothing to fear from the frog faced pisshead and mr bean
 
clivex said:
For all his faults, hes smart and a strong debater. Might not have a manner that appeals to everyone but hes convincing as a leader.

I think Clegg is often harshly judged but Cameron has nothing to fear from the frog faced pisshead and mr bean
Click to expand...

Is he a good debater? or is he good at delivering pre-prepared one-liners at PMQ's to planted sympathetic questions? FWIW, I'd expect him to more than hold his own. Miliband will be OK if its an academic debate, but I'd expect Cameron to come out on top by virtue of a quicker wit. I do think Farage scares him though. What Cameron is scared of is the sizeable chunk of his own parliamentary who would quite like a Farage type character as leader. It's going to be very difficult for Cameron to argue against Farage in the knowledge that huge tracts of the Tory party agree with UKIP. His room for manouevre is really restricted and Farage has all the advantages of the under dog. I suspect Cameron would come out of it OK in the eyes of the electorate, but I think it's the parliamentary, and wider party that worries him. He's already been called out by Farage once and sat on his stool (at least Clegg left the saloon bar to meet Farage in the street - and duly got duffed up!) but he showed more gumption than Cameron
 
Maruco said:
Possibly. It would be a huge gamble though because it could and probably would turn into an orchestrated Tory rock throwing exercise which could be damaging.
Click to expand...

It's not just that which would damage Cameron. Farage would take the mantle of the right wing and present himself UKonservative. The debate would then proceed as normal with right - left - and centre represented and Cameron an absent spectator. Clegg has already suggested that he's an affront to democracy. It's going to be really, really easy to accuse him of being aloof and thinking he's too good to go before the British people. And I mean really easy. He might try and claim that the debates trivialise the campaign, but sadly he's said far too many things in opposition that could be wheeled out and used to crucify him. The charge of hypocrite and chicken will stick.

Furthermore, for such time as he removes himself from this spectacle to concentrate on his campaign, he's going to do nothing more productive than ensure that his very decision to do so becomes his camapign as he'll be unable to escape the questions. Cameron will become the campaign and this risks losing all the messages about the economy that he'd like to bring into it when every other question at his press conferences are going to be about why he thinks he's too good to engage with the British people and make himself available to the same level of scrutiny as the other party leaders.

The other three leaders will all have the stage and can queue up to belittle the 'absent leader' who thinks he's too good to share a platform with the rest of us and you etc even when he does re-engage (as he'll have to) he's going to be left wide open to mocking and he's going to look distinctly un prime ministerial when he's asking the Tory/ UKIP waverers to believe he's the right man to face down the EU and renegotiate Lisbon
 
Maruco said:
I get your point and don't completely disagree. However in the event of a hung Parliament the collection of seats is important and, depending how close, minority parties such as the Greens could potentially become important particularly, and certainly so if the Libs switch to Labour. In the scenario that the Greens held the balance of power they would take what they can and enjoy the opportunity to build profile with their time in the spotlight.

So let's paint the hung Parliament scenario then. Who in your opinion will side up with who? Is it really so fanciful to think that minority party support could become important? And why would the Conservatives want Cameron out in this scenario when it's a distinct possibility pre-election? Surely not needing the Libs to form a Government next time is a more successful return is it not? And if he needed to go back to the Country in those circumstances why wouldn't he, rather than hand power over to a Labour coalition!
Click to expand...

The Greens will also be conscious of the damage they could do longer term for a short term gain (as the liberals have demonstrated). They'll probably calculate that the Tories couldn't be trusted, or that such a slender coalition couldn't last. The 6 months max wouldn't release enough parliamentary time for them to get any bills through anyway. They'd do huge damage to their own membership if they propped the Tories up, and they were lukewarm at best (suspcious would be a better word) about Cameron's sudden conversion to Green politics. He's done it before and the movement regard him as an insincere opportunist. Their own rank and file (outside of the CPRE and various NIMBY's are left leaning liberals).

If you're talking Greens, you're also talking 1 or 2 seats max. The same as Respect, or independents. Are there going to be any Kidderminster Hospitals or anti sleaze candidates? This is the scale you're talking about Paul.

What happens in Scotland? Do they vote SNP, or do they look at the polls at the 24 hour stage and say, actually..... we could put the Tories out here?

In terms of who lines up with who

Tories = Ulster Unionists
Labour = SDLP & Plaid
Liberals = will do what they did last time and go with the biggest party, unless.... UKIP is part of a coalition. If Cameron is bringing UKIP into a rightist family, then he'll being pushing the liberals into the Labour camp

Sinn Fein, & Respect will paddle their own canoe if bothering to vote at all

The Greens really aren't in play in anything other than a very, very, unlikely piece of maths, and even then it's highly doubtful whether Cameron would be able to form a government beyond presenting a Queens speech. The risk associated with sitting outside the three debates well outweighs the likelihood of needing the support of the Greens to form a government. If this is his calculation then it's frankly one of the most moronic miscalculations since the Poll tax or the 10% band. It's the sort of thing I'd expect from William Hague to be honest.

As I said, no one is going to congratulate him if he ultimately does form a government with 2 green MP's propping him up, if he's kept the Tories outside of the debates. I think it's a racing certainty he'll lose a leadership challenge within 6 months on the back of it
 
Actually the more you think about Cameron's supposed reasons for trying to avoid this (he wants labour to come under attack from the greens in the same way as he knows he'll come under attack from UKIP) the more you realise he is scared of Farage lecturing and hectoring him, knowing that Farage is speaking for a significant number of his own parliamentary party and doing a complete number on the leader of the conservatives. He really doesn't fancy this does he?
 
clivex said:
For all his faults, hes smart and a strong debater. Might not have a manner that appeals to everyone but hes convincing as a leader.

I think Clegg is often harshly judged but Cameron has nothing to fear from the frog faced pisshead and mr bean
Click to expand...

Clegg is comfortably the smartest leader in British politics. He has made some political errors but intellectually he is miles above the others. You have the impression Cameron doesn't have any intellectual beliefs, but is chameleon-like. Miliband is too technical and doesn't see the bigger picture, and has difficulty getting his message across. Farage will look good when it comes to representing the far right on immigration topics but get him off this and the EU and he will come across like a junior student politician and drown vis-a-vis all the others. Immigration/EU will only take up a relatively small amount of the debate you would think. It's all about the economy, then the NHS.
 
Back
Top