Yesterday you made a speech in which you stressed your commitment to a new
kind of politics. In particular, you laid great emphasis on the need to find ways to re-engage young people. I have long believed that a television debate between the main Party Leaders during the General Election campaign would be an excellent way to achieve that. It would be informative and interesting. It would bring politics to life. So I was very surprised that a day after you promised a new kind of politics, you chose to rule out such a debate.It is true, of course, that we have the opportunity to debate matters at Prime Minister’s Questions. But that is a very different matter to a proper television
debate during a General Election campaign – when Parliament is not sitting, and
when people will be most receptive to engaging in political discussion. I am sure, on reflection, that you will want to re-consider your position. I remain ready to hold such a debate, either between the two of us, or including the Liberal Democrat Leader, whenever the opportunity arises.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Cameron Puts Brown on the Spot over Debate
Delighted to see David Cameron putting Brown on the spot over his refusal to hold a debate with the other two party leaders during a general election campaign. Here's his letter to Brown...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
But Iain, the Tories were against this when they were in office!
Perhaps if Gordon continues to refuse Cameron and Ming should adopt the HIGNFY strategy and put an inanimate object in place of Brown. On second thoughts that wouldn't be much different to him actually attending.
My recollection is that at the 1997 election it was Blair who refused the debate. After all, at the time he had a strong lead, and so a debate would have been a risk with much to to lose and nothing to gain
"The Tories were against this when in office" - what, parties, broad coalitions of people with varying but united views, can't change their policies? In that case the Liberals can't support higher taxes because they used to support lower ones and Labour can support almost nothing at all that they currently promise. This is a great strategy to make Brown look like a big girl against a newly resurgent (according to today's Times) machine. We have to get after his newly uncovered wholesome window dressing Old Labour social conservatism (dope, casinos) to pacify the shouty tabloids and challenge him to show actual balls, not the kind that can merely be envisaged in a press release.
So what -- Brown doesn't need to even try, Cameron does the 'put on spot' thing very much to himself when one considers the latest Tory policy offering from him in the Daily Wail: no NHS treatment for 'unhealthy lifestyles' (does AIDS, injuries from car accidents and getting too old count here too? And how will that be policed, and by whom?), free houseshares for 'the poor' (presumably the next poor tenant eligible for the social housing after this tenant moves has to find 50k to move in, or maybe more?)
and free veg for patients who get better (shades of 'ave a banana) and presumably gruel for those who stay sick?
See here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=479892&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&expand=true#StartComments
The Tories is no conservative party, it's a gaggle of stark bonkers kooks.
Oh my word a debate would be absolutely fantastic - imagine Brown standing up with his ability to unload decades of experienced and the clear contrast with Cameron. It would be the final nail.
David Cameron discussed this 'debate' on WEBCAMERON yesterday.
Here is the link.
http://www.webcameron.org.uk/page.php?id=4&forum_showtopic=1060
It is under 'David's Responses' in the the forum on Webcameron.
A debate would be fantastic.
Question to David Cameron:
Snap poll. Is Cameron ready? Are the Tories ready for change?
Author: canvas
David Cameron's response:
Whenever the Prime Minister chooses to call an election, the Conservative Party will be ready. If you want the evidence of that, just look at the all the ideas that are coming out right now. On every major issue that is facing the country, it is us, not Labour, who are doing the serious, long-term thinking and setting the agenda.
Part of this agenda is of course our economy. What John Redwood’s report did was show how the arteries of the British economy are being furred up by Gordon Brown’s excessive regulation and tax rises. Hence his ambitious agenda for tax reform, cutting red tape and improving our transport system so Britain can compete in the globalised economy.
But we haven’t just been talking about how we can be a more economically successful country. We want to combine that with how to be an environmentally and socially healthy one too. That’s why Iain Duncan-Smith’s report was such a landmark in British social policy, showing the way on how we can fix our broken society by, in part, strengthening families. John Gummer’s report on Quality of Life will be coming out soon as well, which will show what can be done to tackle climate change and build strong and inclusive communities. And our recent campaign on the NHS, where we want to save services against Gordon Brown’s cuts shows that once again, our priorities are those of the people of this country.
Good letter but will have no impact outside the chattering classes. Down here people are much more concerned about the weather and the price of pigs.
Still, the BBC will probably have to give it a tiny slot in one of their news bulletins.
Iain, the moment an opposition leader calls for a TV debate you know they're a loser. Sorry, but that's axiomatic. Only losers call for a debate.
It's obviously got to do with deflecting from the Ancram attack, but it's pretty pathetic of Cameron to be honest. He really doesn't have good political touch.
It all depends on whom is putting the questions, if the participants are genuinely not informed of the questions to be asked. (And could you trust the BBC or Sky NOT to inform Brown?)
I believe each particpant should nominate one questioner. He/She could
be a journalist/businessman/woman/but NOT an MP.
Do not go for audience participation as the BBC and Sky will weight the audience in Labour's favour!
Maybe David Cameron could have a debate with Michael Ancram instead?
Stalin McSporran is too much of a control freak to agree to risk a debate.
Unless he could write the script of course.
David Cameron said he was going to have a bare knuckle fight with Gordon Brown, and he got floored for his trouble.
Might it be that Gordon Brown does not see the point of kicking a man when he is down?
A bandwagon appears, Cameron leaps. Remind anyone else of W. Hague's final months at the helm?
If Thatcher had debated on TV with Kinnock it could have got very messy for both sides. Even in interviews and on Election Call she made a mess of things.
Gordon's cowardice and lack of conviction becomes ever more apparent.
Brown mocked a "frightened " Thatcher for refusing to debate Kinnock, what's he scared of now?
Cameron sounds a bit like the Black Knight in MP and the Holy Grail here.
Good coverage on Newsnight, with old film of Brown demanding a debate with Thatcher.
Then Paxo and Michael Howard agree that big jessie Brown is a hypocrite and a coward. Luverly Jubbley.
Chris Paul 11.03pm said: "Cameron sounds a bit like the Black Knight in MP and the Holy Grail here."
WTF is he on (about)? (Don't answer that!)
Clever Cameron mentioning including Ming. Makes him look big hearted. Giving the old chap a break but then, if it ever happened, so wiping the floor with him that he can steal all (the rest of) his votes.
Not a bad diversionary tactic. It's true though that it is always the underdog who asks for the debate and the one in a strong position who refuses. IF (big if), Cameron had a good opinion poll lead and it's now 2009: Brown might suddenly decide that his 1987 views on this were visionary after all. (And how much he's aged even BEFORE being PM!)
Just to help my learned friend Diablo please click and learn even more:
This is rather like the Black Knight in MP and the Holy Grail. "Coward!" he shouts armless, legless, policy-less, hopping about in the woods and mire, utterly defeated.
"L" goes Gordon's finger and thumb.
Agree with the comments that the party feeling most comfortable (typically but not necessarily the one on office) will tend to declien the invitation to debate as they have more to lose/less to gain.
Am wondering when debates first became a feature of British electioneering - I can't personally remember any examples of PM vs Leader of the Opposition debates although there may have been proxy debates between lower level figures. If I'm right it rather suggests that the call for a debate and the consequent kerfuffle is something of a campaigning ritual.
If I were a pedantic purist (imagine) I suppose I might suggest that the PM/LOTO debate(s) should take place in the Commons. And could any highly ritualised debate really compare to the dynamic cut and thrust of PMQ with all the light that is shed on Govt and Opposition policy ... oh hang on ....
Cameron is slowly but surely dying, so Brown is wisely just biding his time. Maybe Cameron should have a debate with his own party instead?
It sounds like the Big Clunking Fist has gone a bit limp wristed.
From Webcameron under 'David's Responses' in the forum:
Cameron Brown Campbell debate?
Author: tonymakara
Reply from David Cameron:
I’d like nothing more than to have a televised debate with the Prime Minister at the next election. I suspect that he’d be less keen!
Actually, an important general point is raised here. I disagree with Graham when he says that this kind of stuff puts people off politics. When I was running for the Conservative leadership we had a televised debate and the response to it was great. It engaged people with the process because it allowed participants to set out their ideas and vision. Of course, if you haven’t got a vision for the country and no ideas to set out, it may be less appealing. Hence, as I said, why I think the current Prime Minister may reject a debate.
Is the Leader of every party standing candidates to be given equal airtime in the course of this debate, should it ever happen? If not, why not? And what about Independent candidates?
Post a Comment