What exactly has Farage got to scare Cameron with? Cameron can easily win the EU argument - promised referendum, 'I believe the people should decide' etc etc. They move on to other topics and Farage will be a laughing stock, his policies were hilarious last time out. FFS, he couldn't even put an inveterate like Russell Brand in his place, what chance has he got with people much smarter than him?
Cameron a chicken?
- Thread starter Warbler
- Start date
What exactly has Farage got to scare Cameron with? Cameron can easily win the EU argument - promised referendum, 'I believe the people should decide' etc etc. They move on to other topics and Farage will be a laughing stock, his policies were hilarious last time out. FFS, he couldn't even put an inveterate like Russell Brand in his place, what chance has he got with people much smarter than him?
I wouldn't disagree with any of that bar the first line perhaps. I'm not sure that I've found clegg to be memorably smart but it's crazy how he has been rubbished for the coalition. It was clearly the logical step at the time. He simply couldn't justify propping up brown and felt he had a duty to ensure there was a workable government.
Farage is smart but fundamentally lazy minded. Cameron is short of a vision but canny and as warbler says, quick witted. That's very true about milliband. His team have knocked blairs comments but Blair was a excellent template of how to reach out and give a positive message. As ever Andrew rawnsleys piece last Sunday was spot on.
Farage is smart but fundamentally lazy minded. Cameron is short of a vision but canny and as warbler says, quick witted. That's very true about milliband. His team have knocked blairs comments but Blair was a excellent template of how to reach out and give a positive message. As ever Andrew rawnsleys piece last Sunday was spot on.
have to say I agree. Brand was there for the taking and he simply didnt know what to do .
He does occasionally slip up though when he becomes over-familiar and lerches into crass laddishness (wouldn't expect to make that mistake in this forum though).
Farage is a dangerous opponent in these situations because he can say the sorts of things that people think but daren't say, and also because much of this will strike a popular nerve which will resonate within the conservatives. Cameron knows he personally can't say the same things (even if he believes some of it privately and isn't completely unsympathetic). It's goign to be like debating with a rogue editor of the Daily Mail. Playing opposite someone who keeps pinching your lines is never easy. I'd be very confident that Cameron is more scared of Farage than the rest put together because of these reasons. Farage can of course reach into Tory party and even taunt him about defections etc Farage can stoop pretty low and fight dirty and Cameron can't really respond, or to be more precise, has to tread a very fine line between not lowering himself to Farage's level but not being seen to be turning into a punchbag. If you think Cameron can easily win the EU argument Farage only need remind him of the result. It's far from clear cut. Like I said, you only need to look at how Ross Perot (a natural Republican) took down the academic George H Bush whilst a smiliing Bill Clinton played charismatic good guy on the fringe.
I also think however the fact that Farage is your archetypal conservative club loon will help (all associations have them and Cameron must have come across thousands of them). This background will ultimately mean that he'll turn more of his fire on Labour, but on incendiary subjects like Europe and immigration, Cameron is going to have a really uncomfortable time as Farage eats into him
If you want an insight into Cameron's muddled thinking look no further than the reasons he's given for trying to get the Greens involved. He wants them to participate so that they might give Miliband a bit of the same treatment that he expects to get off UKIP! That's how frightened and obsessed with Farage he's becoming. Farage is clearly at the forefront of Cameron's mind to the point where he's even considering refusing to put himself in front the British public scrutiny and expect them to vote for him! It's the behaviour an d judgement of a paranoid obsessive who is losing the focus. The other three leaders are going to crucify Cameron if he whimps out (as indeed will people within the parliamentary conservative party for reasons I've already speculated on). The labels you could pin on Cameron (and critically, make stick) are almost limitless.
Last edited:
That is not muddled thinking at all from Cameron. He's having to put uo with a an extreme sloganing party party from his wing in the debate so why shouldn't labour too? What's wrong with expecting the same? The greens certainly have support too so it's perfectly justifiable that they are included. As far as I am concerned he is absolutely right.
I don't believe Cameron is "scared" of anyone frankly. You go on about him a little too much and whatever you think of his views no one would deny that he is smart and confident enough to handle any debate.
I don't believe Cameron is "scared" of anyone frankly. You go on about him a little too much and whatever you think of his views no one would deny that he is smart and confident enough to handle any debate.
I just cant buy into Cameron being afraid to front up to Farage. Quite simply there's nothing to be afraid of despite your contention that he has more to fear from his own party, which I also don't buy.
As I've already said, his party analysts will be painting all conceivable election scenarios and unless you can come up with another theory I can't find any other reason.
Plus in the unlikely (but possible), scenario where he needed Green seats I'm certain the Greens would take their day in the sun for some fairly minor concessions. For them they'd take the opportunity for some kind of voice and profile rather than being unheard on the fringes.
Any more theories because there is no way this is because he won't front Farage?
Clive's take on this is far more likely to be correct, but a principled stand doesn't sit well with your anti-Tory position or your opening post, so I'm sure you have some other theories?
As I've already said, his party analysts will be painting all conceivable election scenarios and unless you can come up with another theory I can't find any other reason.
Plus in the unlikely (but possible), scenario where he needed Green seats I'm certain the Greens would take their day in the sun for some fairly minor concessions. For them they'd take the opportunity for some kind of voice and profile rather than being unheard on the fringes.
Any more theories because there is no way this is because he won't front Farage?
Clive's take on this is far more likely to be correct, but a principled stand doesn't sit well with your anti-Tory position or your opening post, so I'm sure you have some other theories?
Last edited:
Well in that case its has to be one of the most badly thought out pieces of strategic thinking they've produced if your theory is true (is William Hague behind it?). On eof the sub issues that will emerge in the run up to the election is voter apathy and participation/ engagement etc and a Prime Minister who refuses to make himself available to scrutiny is going to look heavily deficient in this area and be in no position whatsoever to tell people to engage when he refuses to do so himself.
Perhaps the two of you would be so good as to explain why Cameron fought to ensure Alex Salmond should take part in the last TV debate as a deeply held matter of principle? Salmond had many more MP's and votes than the Greens? and more right to be on the floor if Cameron's 1 MP = a place at podium should be observed (as incidentally should George Galloway). Cameron has lost more MP's to UKIP than the Greens have parliamentary seats. Oh he's worried OK. Even Clegg (a man who's spent the last 4 and ahlf years sitting round the same cabinet table as him) is laughing at him saying that he's shown no interest in this direction for 4 and half years and all of sudden it's become a deeply held conviction of his, when it means he might have to go up against a sloganising populist. I think Cameron sees elements of himself in Farage, but more importantly, definitely sees elements of his own party in him, and is aware that they are increasingly looking towards that kind of bombast. Cameron's on a bit of lose/ lose with Farage
This principle he's discovered all of sudden is in itself framed through the prism of UKIP. That alone should serve as a clue as to how he's thinking. It isn't even subtle. That's how preoccupied he's become with it. He thinks the Greens might call Labour a few names, and he wants them there to try and balance things up against the names he's going to get called by UKIP (especially on Europe and immigration). He's allowing Nigel Farage to dictate his own strategy. That's a paranoid and very muddled thinker when the price for doing this is to remove himself from the debate that he so vehemently advocated for in opposition.
Gordon Brown of course agreed to them and looks like a man of conviction and deeply held principle in comparison. Cameron looks like an insincere opportunist chicken. Ultimately though he will be forced into taking part or his leaving the field will be roundly mocked by all quarters (including his own side). It could be fatal blow to him. The Tories don't like chickens, and there's no way he's going to be sell this pup that he's a man of principle standing in solidarity with the Greens. Even the Greens poured cold water that describing him as "having other motivations too"
I should also point out that Cameron has chickened out of a head to head with Farage before. So despite what the two of you think, he has got previous. Indeed, it was left to dear old Nick Clegg to pick up the gauntlet. He did this on two occasions when Cameron ran. I don't think Cameron has ever gone head to head with Farage on regional/ national TV/ radio has he? Clegg has
OK let's ask a really basic question of fact for both you. Did David Cameron accept Nigel farage's challenge for a public debate at last May's European elections? Yes or No.
Did Nick Clegg? Yes/No
Did Cameron calculate that it wasn't in his interests to engage in this pantomime? We don't know, that's a matter of opinion. So let's stick to another question. Who won the most seats and votes in that Euro poll?
Please try and reconcile this with assertions that Cameron ain't scared of anyone then
Perhaps the two of you would be so good as to explain why Cameron fought to ensure Alex Salmond should take part in the last TV debate as a deeply held matter of principle? Salmond had many more MP's and votes than the Greens? and more right to be on the floor if Cameron's 1 MP = a place at podium should be observed (as incidentally should George Galloway). Cameron has lost more MP's to UKIP than the Greens have parliamentary seats. Oh he's worried OK. Even Clegg (a man who's spent the last 4 and ahlf years sitting round the same cabinet table as him) is laughing at him saying that he's shown no interest in this direction for 4 and half years and all of sudden it's become a deeply held conviction of his, when it means he might have to go up against a sloganising populist. I think Cameron sees elements of himself in Farage, but more importantly, definitely sees elements of his own party in him, and is aware that they are increasingly looking towards that kind of bombast. Cameron's on a bit of lose/ lose with Farage
This principle he's discovered all of sudden is in itself framed through the prism of UKIP. That alone should serve as a clue as to how he's thinking. It isn't even subtle. That's how preoccupied he's become with it. He thinks the Greens might call Labour a few names, and he wants them there to try and balance things up against the names he's going to get called by UKIP (especially on Europe and immigration). He's allowing Nigel Farage to dictate his own strategy. That's a paranoid and very muddled thinker when the price for doing this is to remove himself from the debate that he so vehemently advocated for in opposition.
Gordon Brown of course agreed to them and looks like a man of conviction and deeply held principle in comparison. Cameron looks like an insincere opportunist chicken. Ultimately though he will be forced into taking part or his leaving the field will be roundly mocked by all quarters (including his own side). It could be fatal blow to him. The Tories don't like chickens, and there's no way he's going to be sell this pup that he's a man of principle standing in solidarity with the Greens. Even the Greens poured cold water that describing him as "having other motivations too"
I should also point out that Cameron has chickened out of a head to head with Farage before. So despite what the two of you think, he has got previous. Indeed, it was left to dear old Nick Clegg to pick up the gauntlet. He did this on two occasions when Cameron ran. I don't think Cameron has ever gone head to head with Farage on regional/ national TV/ radio has he? Clegg has
OK let's ask a really basic question of fact for both you. Did David Cameron accept Nigel farage's challenge for a public debate at last May's European elections? Yes or No.
Did Nick Clegg? Yes/No
Did Cameron calculate that it wasn't in his interests to engage in this pantomime? We don't know, that's a matter of opinion. So let's stick to another question. Who won the most seats and votes in that Euro poll?
Please try and reconcile this with assertions that Cameron ain't scared of anyone then
Last edited:
Warbler, you don't seem to understand either Cameron or Farage, and have severely mistaken their respective abilities. You seem all over the place politically based on this and the Paris shootings topic - you should read up on UKIP's policies and watch some Farage videos and you'll see Cameron has nothing to be afraid of; quite the contrary, I expect him to make Farage look quite silly. It's worth comparing Farage with Marine le Pen, who, whilst I may disagree with them, has some solid policies, well-thought out and that voters are both aware of and identify with; in other words, her appeal isn't limited to Europe-related topics (though it's of course where she fares strongest too).
The only mistake Cameron may have made here is giving an ultimatum from which he would have to climb down from.
The only mistake Cameron may have made here is giving an ultimatum from which he would have to climb down from.
Well he also knows (or should do) that he can hardly stand in front of the electorate and go banging on about his "success" with gay marriage can he (as he's doing in today's paper) when every opinion poll is telling him that immigration and Europe will be much more important to winning votes.
As regards Hamm, I'll invite you to answer the same question as the other two have failed to address. Farage has called Cameron out before hasn't he? What happened? Nick Clegg took his place that's what happened. Cameron swore he'd rub Farages face in it at Rochester and made that a line in the sand didn't he? What happened? Not enough gay marriage voters there one assumes? Cameron is damaged by UKIP and its eating away at him
The bottom line is that Cameron will take part for all the reasons that I've gone over. Quite why he's batted himself into a corner like this God alive knows. It's a bad misacalculation.
As I understand it, the broadcasters have to abide by Ofcom's judgement, so Cameron has to bring about political influence now in the operating of the media to get the Greens on the platform, or climb down. The stupid thing is, if he does form a government with 2 Greens propping him up and having not taken part in the debates, can none of you see that his own party are going to be livid with him. The man who turned a 20 seat outright majority into a 2 seat coalition.
I despair at you. Blinkers all round
As regards Hamm, I'll invite you to answer the same question as the other two have failed to address. Farage has called Cameron out before hasn't he? What happened? Nick Clegg took his place that's what happened. Cameron swore he'd rub Farages face in it at Rochester and made that a line in the sand didn't he? What happened? Not enough gay marriage voters there one assumes? Cameron is damaged by UKIP and its eating away at him
The bottom line is that Cameron will take part for all the reasons that I've gone over. Quite why he's batted himself into a corner like this God alive knows. It's a bad misacalculation.
As I understand it, the broadcasters have to abide by Ofcom's judgement, so Cameron has to bring about political influence now in the operating of the media to get the Greens on the platform, or climb down. The stupid thing is, if he does form a government with 2 Greens propping him up and having not taken part in the debates, can none of you see that his own party are going to be livid with him. The man who turned a 20 seat outright majority into a 2 seat coalition.
I despair at you. Blinkers all round
Last edited:
Look, if he's got nothing to be afraid of, why has run away, and continues to do so, every time UKIP come calling? Why have UKIP continued to grow in popularity and none of the major parties have been able to land much more than a jab on them? As I said, Clegg's got one of the best positions to view this from being party to the last 4 and half years, and he's describing Cameron's position of principle as "laughable" given that he's shown "no interest" in the area until it started to offer him a glimmer of a get out of jail card
Can you not see what's so fundamentally wrong with what you're suggesting, or to give you a clue, the prism through which you're viewing this?
What a strange comment. Totally misses the point and if anything reinforces mine.
There's nothing strange about it Clive. It's just another reason why he ain't going to really relish this. It's a question of visioning how these exchanges are going to play out. UKIP are going to batter him about his record on immigration and how he's catastrophically failed to meet his targets. Ultimately UKIP are going to appeal to base instinct that resides in a significant percentage of this population. If it didn't, they wouldn't have won the Euro elections. These people, were until now predominantly (though not exclusively) conservative supporters.
Does Cameron really want a situation where he's up there on national TV and Farage is saying "look at your record on immigration" and he retorts "yeah, but look at my record on gay marriage Mr Farage". He might be able to make a bit of capital out of the UKIP councillor who blamed the floods on it, but I have little doubt which one will resonate most with the electorate. Cameron knows that. He can always blame Labour for opening the floodgates. He play a Euro issue card on Clegg, but he's going to struggle with Farage mocking him and actually articulating a view shared by many Tories which Cameron can't endorse publicly himself
This is what makes Farage dangerous. He's a loose canon, with the capacity to plug into a popular sentiment that none of the leaders can, nor dare try to. This is what Hamm isn't getting either. It's not about what he (Hamm) thinks of Farage, nor me, you, or Maruco. It's about what Cameron thinks, and right now he doesn't seem to fancy him
Look at it this way then
These debates take place one a week, three weeks before polling day. The news is dominated by them on the lead up, and similarly for 24 hours in the aftermath. Can Tory strategists seriously be calculating that absenting themselves from the cut and thrust of the campaign for 6 days of the final 21 is likely to help them win votes. If they are doing, they're frankly barmy. Do they think the country is going to settle for David Cameron sitting in as a pundit, in a studio offering his views on who won. What role is he going to playh whilst these are going on? His absence is going to play out really, really badly. His refusal to put himself in front of the country will become the focus of the Tory campaign. It's inevitable too that by now the campaign will be splintering. There will be those strategists and MP's on small majorities who are going to be livid with him, and 21 days out, they'll be letting the media know that. In other words, they'll be fighting each other. Do you think the likes of Nadine will keep quiet, or some of his fringe UKIPers?
There is simply no way that this can be some calculated attempt to form a coalition with the Greens. It's a reciepe to lose votes, not gain them. So why has he made this great stand on behalf of Caroline Lucas then?
Find me any piece of evidence where he's taken an environmental stance in the last 4 and half years. He's all but abolished the Green deal and watered it right down.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...2012/apr/24/cameron-green-speech-clean-energy
The Green movement know this too. They hardly sounded anything other deeply cynical and sceptical about his motives. If he had a track record on Green issues you might be able to argue it's a conviction, but he hasn't. All he's done is a photo stunt Spitzbergen
Does Cameron really want a situation where he's up there on national TV and Farage is saying "look at your record on immigration" and he retorts "yeah, but look at my record on gay marriage Mr Farage". He might be able to make a bit of capital out of the UKIP councillor who blamed the floods on it, but I have little doubt which one will resonate most with the electorate. Cameron knows that. He can always blame Labour for opening the floodgates. He play a Euro issue card on Clegg, but he's going to struggle with Farage mocking him and actually articulating a view shared by many Tories which Cameron can't endorse publicly himself
This is what makes Farage dangerous. He's a loose canon, with the capacity to plug into a popular sentiment that none of the leaders can, nor dare try to. This is what Hamm isn't getting either. It's not about what he (Hamm) thinks of Farage, nor me, you, or Maruco. It's about what Cameron thinks, and right now he doesn't seem to fancy him
Look at it this way then
These debates take place one a week, three weeks before polling day. The news is dominated by them on the lead up, and similarly for 24 hours in the aftermath. Can Tory strategists seriously be calculating that absenting themselves from the cut and thrust of the campaign for 6 days of the final 21 is likely to help them win votes. If they are doing, they're frankly barmy. Do they think the country is going to settle for David Cameron sitting in as a pundit, in a studio offering his views on who won. What role is he going to playh whilst these are going on? His absence is going to play out really, really badly. His refusal to put himself in front of the country will become the focus of the Tory campaign. It's inevitable too that by now the campaign will be splintering. There will be those strategists and MP's on small majorities who are going to be livid with him, and 21 days out, they'll be letting the media know that. In other words, they'll be fighting each other. Do you think the likes of Nadine will keep quiet, or some of his fringe UKIPers?
There is simply no way that this can be some calculated attempt to form a coalition with the Greens. It's a reciepe to lose votes, not gain them. So why has he made this great stand on behalf of Caroline Lucas then?
Find me any piece of evidence where he's taken an environmental stance in the last 4 and half years. He's all but abolished the Green deal and watered it right down.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...2012/apr/24/cameron-green-speech-clean-energy
The Green movement know this too. They hardly sounded anything other deeply cynical and sceptical about his motives. If he had a track record on Green issues you might be able to argue it's a conviction, but he hasn't. All he's done is a photo stunt Spitzbergen
Last edited:
Why can't you keep it brief?
You are not getting it are you? You have been trying to paint Cameron as someone unprincipled who will just do anything to get the ukip vote. You stated that hes "running scared of ukip. You also stated that he "sees himself" in farage.
gay marriage is totally at odds with that
cameron genuinely dislikes ukip. That's on the record. He is much Closer to milliband and clegg poilitcally than ukip.
Hamm is right. Ukip a policies are all over the place and that will be shown up.
You are not getting it are you? You have been trying to paint Cameron as someone unprincipled who will just do anything to get the ukip vote. You stated that hes "running scared of ukip. You also stated that he "sees himself" in farage.
gay marriage is totally at odds with that
cameron genuinely dislikes ukip. That's on the record. He is much Closer to milliband and clegg poilitcally than ukip.
Hamm is right. Ukip a policies are all over the place and that will be shown up.
Last edited:
Alun you seem to think the only debate is immigration. Farage will be absolutely hammered on every other subject because he's clueless. Cameron has absolutely nothing to worry about fronting up which is why I don't believe it is the reason I why.
Your response to needing the Greens to form a Government also doesn't wash. The Tories could conceivably have a bigger vote but lose the Libs and still form a Government. Why would his Party regard this as failure, particularly when the Greens would have less influence on anything significant than the Libs.
As for failing to front up, I genuinely don't know. You forget I've been out of the country for five years. Either way what has Cameron had to gain previously? I'm not sure there would have been any point and it's surely better to keep your powder dry. As for Farge calling him a chicken. So what? Does anyone care? In fact in broader terms compareatively few care what Farage thinks. I'm sure most are like me and just think he's a chancer and a clown. The only thing the Tories will fear is that some of the UKIP vote may dilute the Tory vote and hand a few marginal seats to Labour.
Your response to needing the Greens to form a Government also doesn't wash. The Tories could conceivably have a bigger vote but lose the Libs and still form a Government. Why would his Party regard this as failure, particularly when the Greens would have less influence on anything significant than the Libs.
As for failing to front up, I genuinely don't know. You forget I've been out of the country for five years. Either way what has Cameron had to gain previously? I'm not sure there would have been any point and it's surely better to keep your powder dry. As for Farge calling him a chicken. So what? Does anyone care? In fact in broader terms compareatively few care what Farage thinks. I'm sure most are like me and just think he's a chancer and a clown. The only thing the Tories will fear is that some of the UKIP vote may dilute the Tory vote and hand a few marginal seats to Labour.
Over-posted - this one obviously for Clive
No I didn't, at least when I quote other people I have decency to lift their quote verbatim and copy and paste it rather than hack the bits out that alter the context - that's naughty, and it's the sort of thing I'd expect from Nigel Farage. This is what I said
"I think Cameron sees elements of himself in Farage, but more importantly, definitely sees elements of his own party in him"
The key word is 'elements' and yes I do believe that. I do believe Cameron sees elements of UKIP nationalism in himself and their approach to eurocracy. What frightens him more is the prospect of being lectured by Farage on this subject in front of the nation, knowing that as he does, that this plays out very well with his own party. I don't believe that harping on about a single issue (gay marriage) proves your point I'm afraid.
Just how exactly do you think Cameron is going to expose UKIP's policies if he doesn't show up? The thing I can't escape from, is the sure knowledge that you'd be calling Miliband all sorts of names if he were trying to hold out for the Greens. So in that regard you lack credibility due to your partisan blinkers
No I didn't, at least when I quote other people I have decency to lift their quote verbatim and copy and paste it rather than hack the bits out that alter the context - that's naughty, and it's the sort of thing I'd expect from Nigel Farage. This is what I said
"I think Cameron sees elements of himself in Farage, but more importantly, definitely sees elements of his own party in him"
The key word is 'elements' and yes I do believe that. I do believe Cameron sees elements of UKIP nationalism in himself and their approach to eurocracy. What frightens him more is the prospect of being lectured by Farage on this subject in front of the nation, knowing that as he does, that this plays out very well with his own party. I don't believe that harping on about a single issue (gay marriage) proves your point I'm afraid.
Just how exactly do you think Cameron is going to expose UKIP's policies if he doesn't show up? The thing I can't escape from, is the sure knowledge that you'd be calling Miliband all sorts of names if he were trying to hold out for the Greens. So in that regard you lack credibility due to your partisan blinkers
Last edited:
You are still missing the point. The single issue is important because it singles Cameron out as someone who's not swayed by reactionary parties or elements in his party. At no obvious gain to himself.
Thats is opposite to what you have stated.
and agree with Mauroco. Name calling by farage will have absolutely no effect on the electorate.
Thats is opposite to what you have stated.
and agree with Mauroco. Name calling by farage will have absolutely no effect on the electorate.
Name calling or making pre-prepared soundbites stick will resonate with the electorate in my opinion. I do believe the two are different though. This is the crucial bit for me though
"it singles Cameron out as someone who's not swayed by reactionary parties or elements in his party. At no obvious gain to himself".
I agree, I can't for the life of me see where the gain is for him, and based on that, I can't understand what he and his advisors are thinking in these terms. It's such a poor decision I can only assume he's very confident that Ofcom will reverse their decision, or that the broadcasters have it within their terms of license to ignore a regulator? Of the two messages that can be sent out based on this decision (to what is becoming an increasingly wary and cynical electorate) I know I'd rather try and market 'Cameron is a chicken' rather than 'Cameron is a principled closet Green'. I know which will stick
The thing is, all he had to do was feign disapproval with Ofgem's decision, but say he must abide by it. Instead he looks as much churlsih as he does principled. He had his opportunity (as all parties have) to make their representations to the regulator, and this time he hasn't got the verdict he wanted, so his reaction has been to take his ball home and refuse to play - statesman? well if he gets the result he wants, then he can be vindicated, and yes, that will look like a clever piece of brinksmanship, but right now I'm not sure how he's going to achieve that without necessarily knowing about the machinations of Ofgem
"it singles Cameron out as someone who's not swayed by reactionary parties or elements in his party. At no obvious gain to himself".
I agree, I can't for the life of me see where the gain is for him, and based on that, I can't understand what he and his advisors are thinking in these terms. It's such a poor decision I can only assume he's very confident that Ofcom will reverse their decision, or that the broadcasters have it within their terms of license to ignore a regulator? Of the two messages that can be sent out based on this decision (to what is becoming an increasingly wary and cynical electorate) I know I'd rather try and market 'Cameron is a chicken' rather than 'Cameron is a principled closet Green'. I know which will stick
The thing is, all he had to do was feign disapproval with Ofgem's decision, but say he must abide by it. Instead he looks as much churlsih as he does principled. He had his opportunity (as all parties have) to make their representations to the regulator, and this time he hasn't got the verdict he wanted, so his reaction has been to take his ball home and refuse to play - statesman? well if he gets the result he wants, then he can be vindicated, and yes, that will look like a clever piece of brinksmanship, but right now I'm not sure how he's going to achieve that without necessarily knowing about the machinations of Ofgem
I think UKIP are starting to eat away them yeah
Since Eastleigh the Tories have lost 6 of 7 by-elections to them, and in 2104 they lost the European elections to them and saw 2 MP's defect
I suspect the reason Cameron ducked Farage at the last Euro election is because there wasn't necessarily that much between them in some areas and it would have made for a very uncomfortable debate for him. He also needed to combine the position of campaigner and Prime Minister and being seen to agree with the Eurosceptic Farage in an area too many would have been damaging both externally and within the conservative party as MP's looked on and realised there wasn't that much between them after all (I think this worries Cameron a bit). I think it's perceptions within his own parliamentary party. Look how twitchy they were at the last party conference. The lack of another high profile defection during the week was seen as 'a result'
Clegg by contrast had clear water between himself and UKIP and duly felt he had to take the fight as a matter of honour and principle (even though the mood in the country at the time would have been heavily loaded against him - as it proved)
Absolutely - and isn't that what you'd have advised? I would have. Furthermore I'd have expected any half competent political advisor to do the same (why I referenced Coulson at the outset). It's not a difficult position to brief is it? This is what left me bewildered when I saw the original headline. I only clicked the article to check it wasn't a BBC typo
To a large extent the cat was let out the bag today
Conservative peer Lord Finkelstein said Mr Cameron was right not to take part in the debates without the Greens, saying such a format would favour UKIP leader Nigel Farage because of his "outsider status".
"Nigel Farage would be able to do what Nick Clegg did in 2010, attacking the insiders on behalf of the viewers without being held to account," hewrote in the Times.
"Why on earth would Mr Cameron want to agree to allow that to happen?"
In a statement, the four broadcasters said: "The debates played an important role in informing millions of our viewers in 2010 and we will continue to work with all the parties to ensure that they happen again in 2015"
Reading between the lines (in fact you don't even have to read between them) it translates into 'Cameron is very concerned bordering on frightened over allowing Farage a podium to rubbish him. As I said, he's lost 6 of the last 7 by elections to him. Lost the Euro elections to him, and seen 2 of his MP's defect. The broadcasters fought for years to get these debates staged, I can't think that they'll want to surrender that easily, so it looks like they're digging in. Can Cameron afford a no show? Can Cameron afford to have his whole campaign turned around on to whether or not he's a chicken? The media will ensure this remains a centre stage issue because it involves them, and there is nothing they enjoy reporting on more than themselves. He had his chance to make his representations to the regulator, and he did. Now he's behaving like a petulant footballer who won't accept the decision of the referee.
Someone in the backroom of the Tory campaign needs to have a pragmatic word in his ear before this becomes a proper distraction for them. Radio 5 have a programme on Saturday morning's called 'Fighting Talk' which features a section called "defend the indefensible". Here a panelist has to conjure up a plausible line of defence to an incredulous proposition. The key is to try and sound convincing even though you're nearly always reduced to desperatation. That's what Cameron sounded like today, and Lord Frankenstein in his desperate attempts to defend, has pretty well confirmed what you hardly need to be a genius to see.
Luckily for Cameron, Ed Miliband is no John Smith. The former Labour leader would have been mocking him left right and centre for his meek excuses. He'd have been serving up the one liners about being checking, when sitting back down in case he crushes the egg he's just laid. etc
Conservative peer Lord Finkelstein said Mr Cameron was right not to take part in the debates without the Greens, saying such a format would favour UKIP leader Nigel Farage because of his "outsider status".
"Nigel Farage would be able to do what Nick Clegg did in 2010, attacking the insiders on behalf of the viewers without being held to account," hewrote in the Times.
"Why on earth would Mr Cameron want to agree to allow that to happen?"
In a statement, the four broadcasters said: "The debates played an important role in informing millions of our viewers in 2010 and we will continue to work with all the parties to ensure that they happen again in 2015"
Reading between the lines (in fact you don't even have to read between them) it translates into 'Cameron is very concerned bordering on frightened over allowing Farage a podium to rubbish him. As I said, he's lost 6 of the last 7 by elections to him. Lost the Euro elections to him, and seen 2 of his MP's defect. The broadcasters fought for years to get these debates staged, I can't think that they'll want to surrender that easily, so it looks like they're digging in. Can Cameron afford a no show? Can Cameron afford to have his whole campaign turned around on to whether or not he's a chicken? The media will ensure this remains a centre stage issue because it involves them, and there is nothing they enjoy reporting on more than themselves. He had his chance to make his representations to the regulator, and he did. Now he's behaving like a petulant footballer who won't accept the decision of the referee.
Someone in the backroom of the Tory campaign needs to have a pragmatic word in his ear before this becomes a proper distraction for them. Radio 5 have a programme on Saturday morning's called 'Fighting Talk' which features a section called "defend the indefensible". Here a panelist has to conjure up a plausible line of defence to an incredulous proposition. The key is to try and sound convincing even though you're nearly always reduced to desperatation. That's what Cameron sounded like today, and Lord Frankenstein in his desperate attempts to defend, has pretty well confirmed what you hardly need to be a genius to see.
Luckily for Cameron, Ed Miliband is no John Smith. The former Labour leader would have been mocking him left right and centre for his meek excuses. He'd have been serving up the one liners about being checking, when sitting back down in case he crushes the egg he's just laid. etc
Actually thinking about this. I don't see any reason why Farage is included. He will add nothing other than UKIP's position on immigration. If anything he will dilute and disrupt the debate we really need to see.
i assume broadcast rules have changed in the last five years which mean he must be included?
i assume broadcast rules have changed in the last five years which mean he must be included?
I don't think the rules have changed, I think what's happened is that UKIP have passed the threshold whereby their popularity has demanded that they be included. My understanding is that the politicans lobby Ofcom, but they ultimately have to withdraw from the process to maintain the veneer of independence. Ofcom then make a ruling and everyone agrees to be bound by it (or should do). I don't know if its binding on the broadcasters (albeit Ofcom do have some limited sanction), but the convention is you do what the regulator says and that politicians keep out. UKIP won a European election of course, and the SNP would also have claims based on parliamentary seats. Ofcom have always ruled against the SNP's inclusion because they don't fight enough seats (i.e. they aren't a UK party). Before 'the Presidential debate' the argument used to be centred on whether or not, or how many, party political broadcasts you were allowed to make.
Last edited: