The 麻豆官网首页入口聽 permalink
should all the tv election debates...
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
go ahead...even if one of the pliticians concerned has chickened out of certain ones...
-
Message 2
Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
Absolutely! With an empty chair! "My final offer"? Who does he think he is??
-
Message 3
Posted by Garrypenny (U9662607) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
They could use a stuffed weasel in place of him.
-
Message 4
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
how about a tub of lard.......
isn't it strange how ones attitude changes towards tv debates once they get in power...
he should be honest why he doesn't want to do them...instead of wriggling and weasling... -
Message 5
Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
The broadcasters (especially the 麻豆官网首页入口) are bound by balance and impartiality and the politicians know this. They know that if all opinions aren't reflected, a charge of bias will be leveled at them...and probably right too.
The populations trust in politicians and the political process is at an all time low. Cameron's behaviour here does nothing to improve matters.
These debates (all of them) should go ahead for the sake of our democracy and for the sake of trying to engage the public in the process. Will the debates go ahead? I very much doubt it...and we, the general public, will be the losers. -
Message 6
Posted by Guv-nor (U7476305) ** on Thursday, 5th March 2015
I stoataly agree, ferret out the reason.
Yes, a tub of lard has a long and illustrious political career.
-
Message 7
Posted by Tim (U16244249) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
The terms of the election debates, including the timing, number of debates and participants, should not be dictated by one party. It is for the broadcasters to consult and set the terms of the debates impartially. If at this stage (after consultation) the broadcasters change their proposals at the behest of one party this is completely undemocratic. The 麻豆官网首页入口 will not be serving the license fee payers or voters if they in any way alter these proposals. If on the other hand one party or leader decides they don't want to participate and they want to exclude themselves then it is not the broadcasters who are being biased by not providing the opportunity for all opinions to be heard. The leader should be empty chaired. If the broadcasters do not continue with the originally proposed format then they are betraying the voters and the voters will not forgive them for it!
-
Message 8
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
Why should broadcasters have such a say..they aren't elected..they don't run the country...
In fact the broadcasters should have no say in such things..apart from broadcasting them.
The broadcasters should report the news...not make it.. -
Message 9
Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 5th March 2015
Obvious isn't it??
You can't have a debate if all.the relevant parties are not involved,this has turned into a farce,as l recall the debates last time around where done with the parties,especially Conservatives wanting them ,now they don't.
The last election was the first time,broadcasters must have thought the parties wanted them again,well it seems that is not the case.
No winners ,just losers. -
Message 10
Posted by Cyril-Furr (U10382673) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
Well if you think about it - in theory, you have Sky, C4, C5, ITV, 麻豆官网首页入口 etc one one side of the table, on the other side of the table, about 8 + political parties....
& big surprise - this lot cannot agree.......
& even if that did, they would all be shouting over each other - just like question time.........
I was surprised they happened last time - I will be amazed if they happen this time!
If they do....the broadcasters need ti fit each one with an electronic gag - so they only speak one at a time! -
Message 11
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
But everything had been sorted...
Who was staging which debate and with which parties was decided last month...
So what you say is totally wrong...
I don't know why the pm has pulled now when he got exactly what he had asked for....
Maybe he didn't think he'd get what he asked...the broadcasters have called his bluff by agreeing to everything...and he's now got cold feet... -
Message 12
Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 5th March 2015
Because it was to be a series of debates,including one on one with Mr Miliband,that he did not agree to.
He wanted one with all leaders,but not all.leaders have been invited,as in NI.
A mess,you can't debate with loads of leaders at once anyway. -
Message 13
Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
The terms of the election debates, including the timing, number of debates and participants, should not be dictated by one party. It is for the broadcasters to consult and set the terms of the debates impartially. If at this stage (after consultation) the broadcasters change their proposals at the behest of one party this is completely undemocratic. The 麻豆官网首页入口 will not be serving the license fee payers or voters if they in any way alter these proposals. If on the other hand one party or leader decides they don't want to participate and they want to exclude themselves then it is not the broadcasters who are being biased by not providing the opportunity for all opinions to be heard. The leader should be empty chaired. If the broadcasters do not continue with the originally proposed format then they are betraying the voters and the voters will not forgive them for it!聽 I have to say Tim, I agree with everything you say here. Perhaps there is a role for Ofcom...the regulator. If the broadcasters make public their invitation to all the principle players, non of them can be accused of being unfair to either of them.
I have to say, I think this could back fire on David Cameron. It just looks really bad on his part...take part when you believe it's beneficial, don't when you believe it's not. That's no way to behave is it. We are supposed to live in a democracy aren't we?
If what we are told is true across the media including the 麻豆官网首页入口 - Red Ed, weak, Wallace, the bacon sandwich - why is David Cameron so scared of having a joust with Ed?
One further thought, will this behaviour of David's give weight to those who believe that the EU ref., will never happen if David believes he will lose it? -
Message 14
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 5th March 2015
but...it all depends what you mean by principle...
what are the criteria you make in deciding whose principle...
I see quite a few papers are using the word chicken tomorrow...
very flattering...and I don't mind a bit of plagiarism... -
Message 15
Posted by Harvey Specter (U4307220) ** on Friday, 6th March 2015
Yep should definitely go ahead if not just to highlight how scared Cameron is of the process.
-
Message 16
Posted by AmosBurke (U8229185) on Friday, 6th March 2015
I don't think they should be on the TV at all. They prove nothing, except that the pollies are skilled public speakers.
-
Message 17
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Friday, 6th March 2015
Broadcasters are sticking to their guns...and sticking two fingers up to number ten....
They'll go ahead with or without him....
Wonder what sort of retribution Cameron will unleash on them if he gets back in.... -
Message 18
Posted by Chris Huenemoerder (U16227413) on Friday, 6th March 2015
Broadcasters are sticking to their guns...and sticking two fingers up to number ten....
They'll go ahead with or without him....
Wonder what sort of retribution Cameron will unleash on them if he gets back in....聽 Here is the 麻豆官网首页入口 statement:
-
Message 19
Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Friday, 6th March 2015
Broadcasters are sticking to their guns...and sticking two fingers up to number ten....
They'll go ahead with or without him....
Wonder what sort of retribution Cameron will unleash on them if he gets back in....聽 Well as the one he really doesn't want is going to be a Sky/C4 production, I don't really see that there's much for him to unleash.
What's he going to do now - in this little corner into which he's now boxed himself...? -
Message 20
Posted by Cyril-Furr (U10382673) on Friday, 6th March 2015
I wonder who the "individuals" actually are - described as "The Broadcasters" ?
It seems very a very de-humanised way describing themselves.......what do THEY have to hide? Names please....... -
Message 21
Posted by z4mster (U14864348) ** on Friday, 6th March 2015
Four hours of a seven way? Crikey, you'd need to be seriously into your politics to want to watch that, otherwise your right to vote ought to be in question.
It was the broadcasters that screwed the pooch first. They wanted too hard, and for too long, Farage v. The Other Three. They didn't care about democracy, just ratings.
David Cameron has nothing to gain from a head-to-head with Ed Milliband. In all likelihood he would be the better performer, but his time would be spent on the defensive whereas Milliband can say pretty much what he wants, starting with "Frankly" as he is prone to do, and be as populist as he likes. And why wouldn't he. Cameron has a significant margin, over Milliband, in personal ratings, overall and in every area of social interest except the NHS. It's just best to stay out of it.
Beyond that, the whole notion of these debates is a load of cobblers. -
Message 22
Posted by Cyril-Furr (U10382673) on Friday, 6th March 2015
Four hours of a seven way? Crikey, you'd need to be seriously into your politics to want to watch that, otherwise your right to vote ought to be in question.
It was the broadcasters that screwed the pooch first. They wanted too hard, and for too long, Farage v. The Other Three. They didn't care about democracy, just ratings.
David Cameron has nothing to gain from a head-to-head with Ed Milliband. In all likelihood he would be the better performer, but his time would be spent on the defensive whereas Milliband can say pretty much what he wants, starting with "Frankly" as he is prone to do, and be as populist as he likes. And why wouldn't he. Cameron has a significant margin, over Milliband, in personal ratings, overall and in every area of social interest except the NHS. It's just best to stay out of it.
Beyond that, the whole notion of these debates is a load of cobblers.聽 Yes agreed, you know they will all be talking over each other - Cameron is right - at least in the Commons, the speaker is there to keep some sort of order
-
Message 23
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Friday, 6th March 2015
But its Cameron that wants the seven way one...but not the two way one..
And of course there will be a presenter present that will keep more order than any speaker... -
Message 24
Posted by z4mster (U14864348) ** on Friday, 6th March 2015
But its Cameron that wants the seven way one...but not the two way one..
And of course there will be a presenter present that will keep more order than any speaker...聽
Yes, wolfie, but on the 23rd March, outside of the short campaign period. As things stand they will come later.
Assuming nothing changes, David Cameron will still get his face in front of the camera, at some point, and will be saying "while this lot are busy taking lots of time out to line up their sound bites, predict comments and questions, prepare answers and rebuttals, and generally bickering for four hours, I'm the one busy being Prime Minister at this crucial time for our country."
The man's a genius.
Or he'll cave.
-
Message 25
Posted by Cyril-Furr (U10382673) on Friday, 6th March 2015
It is emerging David Cameron sees the broadcasters news depts, are all pretty left wing, their plan of debates in April, favours the left & not the right - that seems to be his POV.
I believe it goes much deeper than that - tied in with the Tory plans for the fate of the 麻豆官网首页入口 - AFTER the election.
It seems Sky & ITV & probably C4 too, do not want the 麻豆官网首页入口 weakened........perhaps in fear of more open competition would mean their advertising revenues split a bit too much? - which perhaps explains their position.
A theory maybe, but an interesting situation. -
Message 26
Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Friday, 6th March 2015
Four hours of a seven way? Crikey, you'd need to be seriously into your politics to want to watch that, otherwise your right to vote ought to be in question.
It was the broadcasters that screwed the pooch first. They wanted too hard, and for too long, Farage v. The Other Three. They didn't care about democracy, just ratings.
David Cameron has nothing to gain from a head-to-head with Ed Milliband. In all likelihood he would be the better performer, but his time would be spent on the defensive whereas Milliband can say pretty much what he wants, starting with "Frankly" as he is prone to do, and be as populist as he likes. And why wouldn't he. Cameron has a significant margin, over Milliband, in personal ratings, overall and in every area of social interest except the NHS. It's just best to stay out of it.
Beyond that, the whole notion of these debates is a load of cobblers.聽 The problem with all that is that Cameron was so enthusiastic last time...that they should become a "...permanent fixture..." Now, he is not so enthusiastic which screams volumes. He is attempting to hijack the whole democratic process which reflects really badly on him and his party.
I thought 'Wallace' / 'Red Ed' was supposed to be weak, according to the media. If this is the case, what is Cameron's problem? Does he not want to defend his record? What is he scared of?
If the broadcasters had caved into Cameron completely (having by all accounts been fair to all parties) they would have been accused of bias. -
Message 27
Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Friday, 6th March 2015
To add to this (my apologies), the manifestos aren't published until the start of April which is why it is useless having any debates before that point.
-
Message 28
Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Friday, 6th March 2015
A little from Ofcom's broadcasting code:
Rule 6.9 states: 鈥淚f a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead)鈥.
Rule 6.10 states: 鈥淚n addition to Rule 6.9, broadcasters must offer the opportunity to take part in constituency or electoral area reports and discussions, to all candidates within the constituency or electoral area representing parties with previous significant electoral support or where there is evidence of significant current support. This also applies to independent candidates. (However, if a candidate refuses or is unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead)鈥.
Thought it would be of interest to messageboarders. -
Message 29
Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) ** on Saturday, 7th March 2015
What I want to know is how the hell Sky got its foot in the door?
What gives them any British credibility, or claim to represent such an important British issue?
And how much will they earn from this stunt? Not least in unwarranted credibility for being allowed anywhere near. -
Message 30
Posted by Red Horizon (U1719289) on Sunday, 8th March 2015
go ahead...even if one of the pliticians concerned has chickened out of certain ones...聽 Yep - these people are making a bid to run the country, so, i feel as though it is only right and proper for them to come forward and be allowed to make the case as to why i should vote for them.
-
Message 31
Posted by Cyril-Furr (U10382673) on Monday, 9th March 2015
What I want to know is how the hell Sky got its foot in the door?
What gives them any British credibility, or claim to represent such an important British issue?
And how much will they earn from this stunt? Not least in unwarranted credibility for being allowed anywhere near.聽 Good question about Sky, I note Channel 5 is not mentioned as one of these "Broadcasters" & they have news etc - so how did this collective of broadcasters come about & WHO are it's committee members?
It seems to have some clout - so it must have a constitution I would have thought.
Or are "The broadcasters" just a load of Bull........... -
Message 32
Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Monday, 9th March 2015
Well of course ITN provides news for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5...that's perhaps why Channel 5 have been excluded. You have 麻豆官网首页入口, ITN x2 and Sky.
-
Message 33
Posted by Chris Huenemoerder (U16227413) on Monday, 9th March 2015
What I want to know is how the hell Sky got its foot in the door?
What gives them any British credibility, or claim to represent such an important British issue?
And how much will they earn from this stunt? Not least in unwarranted credibility for being allowed anywhere near.聽 Good question about Sky, I note Channel 5 is not mentioned as one of these "Broadcasters" & they have news etc - so how did this collective of broadcasters come about & WHO are it's committee members?
It seems to have some clout - so it must have a constitution I would have thought.
Or are "The broadcasters" just a load of Bull...........聽 I do not understand what your complaint is. Channel 5 is not generally known for its major news content. What they do get is supplied by ITN. Channel 4 and Sky seem to be working together.
Sky was involved in the previous election debates.
All the major television news outlets are involved in setting up the debates in conjunction with the political parties. Nothing is simply decided by the broadcasters, or by the political parties.
Last time, there the discussions between the parties and the broadcasters resulted in the setting out of 76 guiding 'rules' for the running of the:
Audience selection: 1 - 13
Audience role: 14 - 40
Structure of the programme: 41 - 57
Role of the moderator: 58 - 64
Themes: 65
Set: 66 - 68
Audience cutaways: 69 - 76
Details can be found here:
-
Message 34
Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) ** on Tuesday, 10th March 2015
Well of course ITN provides news for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5...that's perhaps why Channel 5 have been excluded. You have 麻豆官网首页入口, ITN x2 and Sky.聽 From last time I don't remember. So I have to pay this Murdoch to see them fight, or not?
-
Message 35
Posted by Lee (U1149673) ** on Tuesday, 10th March 2015
From last time I don't remember. So I have to pay this Murdoch to see them fight, or not? 聽
No, I seem to remember from last time that each of the debates is repeated later on the other channels. -
Message 36
Posted by Harvey Specter (U4307220) ** on Tuesday, 10th March 2015
From last time I don't remember. So I have to pay this Murdoch to see them fight, or not? 聽
No, I seem to remember from last time that each of the debates is repeated later on the other channels.聽 And will be on a million platforms online should you miss those. -
Message 37
Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) ** on Tuesday, 10th March 2015
From last time I don't remember. So I have to pay this Murdoch to see them fight, or not? 聽
No, I seem to remember from last time that each of the debates is repeated later on the other channels.聽 And will be on a million platforms online should you miss those.聽 And the retail opportunities?
Will it be a case of
'And Mr Cameron will answer that tricky question after this propaganda for facecream and fairytales. We'll be right back' -
Message 38
Posted by Chris Huenemoerder (U16227413) on Tuesday, 10th March 2015
Well of course ITN provides news for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5...that's perhaps why Channel 5 have been excluded. You have 麻豆官网首页入口, ITN x2 and Sky.聽 From last time I don't remember. So I have to pay this Murdoch to see them fight, or not?聽 No you don't. Sky are doing their in conjunction with Channel 4:
-
Message 39
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Tuesday, 10th March 2015
So its not just sky you're against then...but c4 and ITV...
-
Message 40
Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Tuesday, 10th March 2015
And in any case...isn't sky news available to everyone..Chris....
-
Message 41
Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) ** on Tuesday, 10th March 2015
So its not just sky you're against then...but c4 and ITV...聽 You cling to your retail interruptions and consumerist propaganda if you must.
'To be or not to be..'
(We'll be right back..)
Some of us still have adult attention spans, and don't appreciate having content perverted by commercial indoctrination. You may be desensitised to images of starvation due to juxtaposition with luxury ads for perfume, but not everyone is.
Context influences perception. Every green argument in this debate will be partly neutralised by the consumerism it is bookended by on commercial channels. Commercial channels are inherently politically biased by their financial base.
That is why the 麻豆官网首页入口 is relatively dangerous, and why the rich and powerful and their flock generally hate it and want it destroyed. -
Message 42
Posted by Nicandra (U16200827) on Wednesday, 11th March 2015 (17 Hours Ago)
The politician concerned 'appears' to be too busy endorsing physical attacks on 麻豆官网首页入口 staff by contractors, it is alleged, to bother with trivia like appearing in front of the people.
About this Board
The Points of View team invite you to discuss 麻豆官网首页入口 Television programmes.
Add basic or to your posts.
Questions? Check the for answers first!
Go to: 麻豆官网首页入口 News to discuss topics in the news
Make a complaint? Go to the website.
麻豆官网首页入口 News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback:
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Recent Discussions
麻豆官网首页入口 iD
麻豆官网首页入口 navigation
麻豆官网首页入口 links
Copyright 漏 2015 麻豆官网首页入口. The 麻豆官网首页入口 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.