tinfoilhat Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I was thinking more in the line of pro celebrity cage fighting That would explain the return of "2 jabs" Prescott - I'm at a loss what else he's going to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 Maybe we could eliminate one after each debate. Perhaps the worst two parties should wrestle or have a dance off like on strictly? There is only one way to settle it. FIGHT!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 There is only one way to settle it. FIGHT!!!!!! Lets allow Google fight to sort it out for us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) I won't vote for him but I'm on Cameron's side here. he should be able to turn round and put the rods up to the broadcasters if he wants and like other PM's have before. just because they had the debates one time doesn't mean they have become de rigeur and compulsory every election. even in the United States presidential elections, they have not had the tv debates continuously every election since the first one. of course Cameron can't say whar he probably really thinks - I don't want to debate, because it won't do anything for me or my party and it didn't do anything for me and my party last time either. I don't want to debate, because last time was a mistake that not only did not serve my (Cameron's) interest but also served to cheapen the whole process. The broadcasters are trying to promote this fallacy that the 2010 debates were like some vital constitutional meat and drink/shot in the arm that the democratic process cannot possibly do without in future, when in actual fact they were a total waste of time. ---------- Post added 07-03-2015 at 07:59 ---------- Mrs Thatcher would never have chickened out of this. . once she got to be PM Thatcher did indeed 'chicken out' on debates. Kinnock challenged her in 1987 and she refused. Her successor Major also 'chickened out' and refused a tv debate with Kinnock that time too. But by the time 1997 came round, suddenly it was Major that wanted a tv debate and it was challenger Tony Blair's turn to 'chicken out'. participating or not participating in the debates as PM is not about 'chickening out' at all it is all about seeing what is favourable to your own interest as PM. How can anybody expect politicians act in any other way except in their own interests and in the interests of their party during a campaign. Unless your party is miles behind in the polls like Callaghan's was in 1979 and Major's was in 1997, participating in debates as PM is a very bad idea and no surprise Cameron does not want to play ball this time. Edited March 7, 2015 by blake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroB Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) They could replace him with a tub of lard like HIGNFY did with Roy Hattersley Milliband or a tub of lard? It's no competition - ones not qualified to run the country and the other is a tub of lard. Edited March 7, 2015 by BoroB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Miliband is on a hiding to nothing as he knows his personal ratings surely cannot fall any further. Cameron also knows that the formidable skills that he used to become party leader and then PM in the first place do not include being all that good in debate. Cameron's not been forgiven by a large section of his party for agreeing to the 2010 debates which did not gain him or them any votes. He knows he cannot possibly benefit. How can anybody expect him to want to take part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 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". Yeah, funny how Cameron was all for it when he thought he had the upper hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroB Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Yeah, funny how Cameron was all for it when he thought he had the upper hand If they go ahead it's to hope that Milliband remembers his notes and actually mentions two of the largest issues the public have concerns about, namely the deficit and immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrystottle Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I bet you would if it wasn't the leader of your political persuasion under pressure No chance. And I'm not a Tory, either. I'm 59 and voted all my life, and in that time I've voted Tory once. I voted Labour many more times than that. No more though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Yeah, funny how Cameron was all for it when he thought he had the upper hand That's the tories for you. They don't like playing on an even playing field because they know that narrows down their chances of winning. After how Cameron bullied and harangued Brown about this, what an absolute hypocrite Cameron is now for all to see. This one act sums him up and his party. 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