Mr Bloom Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) I agree with Cameron. This should not be about "electing a President", it's about electing a government, and electing a local representative. The focus on the leaders, rather than their would-be cabinet team, and the policies of the parties as a whole should be the focus. Not some puerile engineered debate where the candidates read a prepared speech prior to "banter" between the protagonists masquerading as "serious debate". Funny then, how he's not rejected the idea of appearing at Prime Minister's Questions time then, isnt' it? Edited March 5, 2015 by Mr Bloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 No it isn't. As said above Cameron knows only he can lose. I think they should go ahead with the debates anyway and if Cameron isn't there then the public will interpret that accordingly. How is what you said different from what I said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Remember the last ones - "I agree with Nick" - how many of them still agree with Nick? PMSL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I agree with Cameron. This should not be about "electing a President", it's about electing a government, and electing a local representative. And on that note, I must admit that I think it's much more informative to attend a local hustings meeting then watch party leaders try and score points off each other on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Scaredy Cat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 He was very keen on leader's debates back in 2010. Indeed when other parties were trying to sort out details in 2010 about the televised debates, David Cameron's aides were very quick to call others "frit" and "chicken". Looks like David Cameron is "frit" and "chicken" this time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bloke Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I don't agree with televised debates; the aftermath is never about the policies, it's all about how many jokes they made, what colour shirt they wore or how many times they coughed. It's politics for people who are too lazy or stupid to research their own vote. If you need to vote based on how stage managed and slick the marketing team have been with the candidate, then you probably should just move to the U.S instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Very true, "the surge of support" for Clegg never materialised at the ballot box. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/7597522/General-Election-2010-Liberal-Democrats-surge-after-Nick-Cleggs-TV-debate-performance.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francypants Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Even one televised debate is one too many for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Not some puerile engineered debate where the candidates read a prepared speech prior to "banter" between the protagonists masquerading as "serious debate". You mean like every appearance he makes in the commons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now