Cameron a chicken?

Thanks Alun. If that is indeed the case then it's a joke. My understanding was that broadcast rules mean that equal coverage must be given to the major parties. If UKIP is a major party I give up, and if UKIP have right to be there then so should any other party that gets a vote in Parliament.

Whatever Cameron's reason is here I hope his stance gets this back to the three main parties in future whoever is in power, or whatever the political landscape is.
 
Maruco,

That's not quite it. UKIP will only be allowed to join 1 of the debates; the LibDems 2, and the final debate is intended to be Miliband versus Cameron.
 
Ukip are way ahead of liberals in the polls. They have had far more recent electoral success. It's rubbish to say they have no place in the debate.
 
That's even more ridiculous! I'd love to know who's brainchild that was.

Crossed post. That was in response to Hamm.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Ukip are way ahead of liberals in the polls. They have had far more recent electoral success. It's rubbish to say they have no place in the debate.
Click to expand...

So if that's the basis the Libs and the Greens were neck a neck in some polls last week, so the Greens have every right to be there, and Cameron is right!!!
 
Maruco said:
So if that's the basis the Libs and the Greens were neck a neck in some polls last week, so the Greens have every right to be there, and Cameron is right!!!
Click to expand...

In truth yes.

Ukip will do better in the election if they are not in the debates than in it. That's why I want to see them there. I think they are dismal but let's see that for what it's worth
 
Last edited:
Or that UKIP have supplanted the Liberals and neither they or the Greens should be there at all
 
clivex said:
In truth yes.

Ukip will do better in the election if they are not in the debates than in it.
Click to expand...

:lol: I think that's likely to be true. Mind you, I'd also extend that to Miliband. If anyone should be looking to wriggle out, it's him
 
Last edited:
That's a really good point Clive and one I'd overlooked.

Now someone needs to tell Cameron the reason he's not debating unless the Greens are there, now we've found one for him that will wash!
 
Last edited:
I agree with that point too Alun. Time for us to become spin doctors given we're doing a better job than the hired help!
 
It's why in the opening post I started it with "strange....." and finished by saying that this wouldn't have had happened if the altogether more combative Coulson was whsipering sweet nothings in his ear.

There was a time in the last campaign when Cameron was given to slipping in popular phrases which didn't really sound like they'd come from the Eton/ Brazenose axis. It made him sound in touch, and in the context of dry politics, almost trendy. I'm sure that as a tabloid editor who needs to be in tune with the zeitgeist, this was Coulson's influence. You don't hear these kind of things from Cameron any longer. For whatever reason (and God knows how because he hardly comes from the street himself) Farage is able to pull off elements of this, and I think this is what partly worries Cameron.

In any event, I'm sure Cameron is a lot more worried by Farage than he needs to be, but critically its what he thinks that matters, not what we think. You do wonder if he's starting to signal his preferences to his advisors and that they're now making the mistake of agreeing with him (telling him what he wants to hear etc). Quite a few politicians have ultimately come unstuck when that starts to happen.

I'm pretty sure that if Coulson were there he'd have been saying get back on the horse and give him ****. Mind you, he did try to make Rochester a line in the sand and it blew up in his face. I do wonder if his personal confidence isn't quite so high at the moment deep down as the outward presentation would have us believe it is?
 
Last edited:
That's the problem with five year terms and twelve months of stagnancy. He hasn't been on the front foot for far too long and being that way is both a habit and influential.
 
I think there's some truth in that, and it happens to all governments. Almost by necessity you're surrounded by cautious civil servants and advisors who want to ingratiate themselves to you, and therefore recognise they need to stay in favour. Once they learn how to read your own nuances they advise accordingly in order to stay on the inner circle. They also control access to the PM too. There is a body of thought of course, which reckons that Thatch ultimately suffered from this, as advisors briefed what they think she wanted to hear, and only reinforced what she told them, as well as preventing contradictory advice getting through.

I reckon he's nuanced that he doesn't fancy Farage and the inner circle have confirmed his judgement. I reckon equally that were he to march into HQ next week slam a file down on the table and say "right, lets takes the ******* down" they'd equally all agree with him that this was the correct response too. It could also be that Willam Hague is playing a role in the background of course, in which case he's dooooooomed
 
Last edited:
The Civil Servants will play whatever side their next future dictates. Priority number one is retaining their Teflon coating. Priority number two is lunch. And priority number three are the ministers they serve given ministers come and go and their job is permanent. :blink:
 
Not a chicken contribution, but more of an election tactics one being employed by the conservatives

as I might have said previously, I live in a two-way marginal that should have gone conservative at the last election, but Labour held on due almost entirely to the Tories finding a totally unelectable candidate who gradually proved to be so during the campaign

Suffice to say, their opening gambit has just come through the letterbox. Under the banner of "DON'T TRUST LABOUR" I wonder if they've learned their lessons? This is verbatim -

"On Labour's watch three million migrants came to Britain, mainly from Asia and Africa - excluding asylum seekers. Anyone expressing concern was labelled "racist" - a deliberate ploy to shut people up. Only the Conservatives IN A MAJORITY GOVERNMENT will be able to reduce immigration"

"The conservatives will scrap Labour's Human Rights Act so that our Supreme Court is 'supreme' (promised at the last election but vetoed by the coalition's Lib Dems). The Lib Dems, with whom we are in coalition, have held us back on many policies which we know you want - don't allow this to continue. GIVE US A CLEAR MAJORITY AT THE NEXT ELECTION"


Urm.... I've taken to spoiling papers for about 10 years now such has been the risible choice, but the return of what Tersea May described as the "nasty party" is evident in this little piece that comes hissing through my letterbox this Sunday. If ever there was a reason to adopt my proposal of being allowed to cast a negative vote this is it. If the Tories had done the constituency maths incidentally they'd realise there are no liberals here (it's touch and go as to whether or not they retain a deposit). If people wanted a nasty nationalist party that has indulges in sinister fascist posturing, they could vote for the real thing, UKIP. For such time as they're producing this kind of bile and hate, I'm actually more angry that the Tories are increasingly forcing me into voting Labour. They also go onto suggest through direct attributable quote that, "20 Labour parliamentary seats depend on Asian votes". What a truly nasty party they are
 
The DUP are horrified that under the latest proposal several parties smaller than them will be included in the debate but not them or any other NI party. I think they have a point.
 
I think it speaks volumes about the marginalisation that the mainland has for Northern Ireland. Surely they must have been able to foresee this. Hell, even i did. Mind you, i'm equally perplexed by Tory cheerleader Nick Robinson who is seriosuly describing these proposals as "calling his (Cameron's) bluff". No they're not. Calling his bluff would have been to go ahead without him. I'm equally unsure what the role of the regulator is in all this now? My understanding was that all the parties and broadcasters made submissions to Ofcom and that they then ruled on it. It would appear now that the regulator doesn't regulate at all, but passes on non-binding advice which broadcasters can disregard if they choose to (a bit like Ofgem if i were being cynical) but it does seem to demonstrate that politicians only use the cover of a regulator when it suits them and that for the most part they're an ineffectual fig leaf (has implications for the FSA of course, albeit they were called a 'watchdog'). Politicians disregard warnings, and then blame when it goes wrong
 
Grey said:
The DUP are horrified that under the latest proposal several parties smaller than them will be included in the debate but not them or any other NI party. I think they have a point.
Click to expand...

No they don't. It's parties with national representation only. rightly so. The snp aren't involved either
 
Well thats changed .mThat being the case the dup do have a point then. Too many involved now.
 
Whichever way the eventually slice it, there's only one thing guaranteed - it will be the biggest pile of sh*ite on the telly that day.
 
George Galloway threatening legal action now if he isn't included

This is really simple. Ofcom made a ruling, so you play to the referees whistle. If David Cameron doesn't like it and starts arguing, then send him off for dissent and give him a 5 year ban. All the broadcasters need do is call his bluff over non-participation, or perhaps offer his place to Nadine Dorries, or Ronald MacDonald instead.
 
Back
Top