Is Cameron a chicken?
Poll: Is Cameron a chicken?
Total Members Polled: 448
Discussion
Yazar said:
fatboy b said:
I admire Cameron's stance. f
k you media, I'm in charge of the country, not you lot. Good show!
Once the election period starts he is no longer 'in charge' as such, just another candidate begging for votes.k you media, I'm in charge of the country, not you lot. Good show!Hmmmm, is is chicken or just plain canny? I have just watched thursdays question time from Glasgow and I was surprised how may of the audience seemed to endorse Mr Camerons decision, so at least on the face of it it's far from a cut and dried issue with the electorate either. My sense of it is that Cameron is probably not chicken, but that he simply feels he has nowt to gain from the debates, and even possibly everything to lose! After all, Mr Miliband pretty much sheds votes every time he speaks to the public...
And there is another factor that possibly is coming into play here, and that is what happened in 2010. Lets be honest, the debates then were utterly crap. Silly soundbite exchages that did not dig into issues, or allow in the format for close scrutiny of claims, context or factual analysis. The debates were nonsensical. Somebody on QT said the media was more transfixed on who looked good etc, and that is probably painfully close to the truth. Clegg won most of them and lets see what subsequently happened to him at the election
That being the case, the debates are of no consequence, serve no purpose and are mildly degrading for the participants in my view.
That Cameron has had the balls to say no and to stand by his terms is a good thing in my view. Haters are always gonna hate, but QT showed that many people probably agree with him.
And there is another factor that possibly is coming into play here, and that is what happened in 2010. Lets be honest, the debates then were utterly crap. Silly soundbite exchages that did not dig into issues, or allow in the format for close scrutiny of claims, context or factual analysis. The debates were nonsensical. Somebody on QT said the media was more transfixed on who looked good etc, and that is probably painfully close to the truth. Clegg won most of them and lets see what subsequently happened to him at the election
That being the case, the debates are of no consequence, serve no purpose and are mildly degrading for the participants in my view.
That Cameron has had the balls to say no and to stand by his terms is a good thing in my view. Haters are always gonna hate, but QT showed that many people probably agree with him.
MarshPhantom said:
Yazar said:
fatboy b said:
I admire Cameron's stance. fk you media, I'm in charge of the country, not you lot. Good show!
Once the election period starts he is no longer 'in charge' as such, just another candidate begging for votes.k you media, I'm in charge of the country, not you lot. Good show!
andymadmak said:
Hmmmm, is is chicken or just plain canny? I have just watched thursdays question time from Glasgow and I was surprised how may of the audience seemed to endorse Mr Camerons decision, so at least on the face of it it's far from a cut and dried issue with the electorate either. My sense of it is that Cameron is probably not chicken, but that he simply feels he has nowt to gain from the debates, and even possibly everything to lose! After all, Mr Miliband pretty much sheds votes every time he speaks to the public...
And there is another factor that possibly is coming into play here, and that is what happened in 2010. Lets be honest, the debates then were utterly crap. Silly soundbite exchages that did not dig into issues, or allow in the format for close scrutiny of claims, context or factual analysis. The debates were nonsensical. Somebody on QT said the media was more transfixed on who looked good etc, and that is probably painfully close to the truth. Clegg won most of them and lets see what subsequently happened to him at the election
That being the case, the debates are of no consequence, serve no purpose and are mildly degrading for the participants in my view.
That Cameron has had the balls to say no and to stand by his terms is a good thing in my view. Haters are always gonna hate, but QT showed that many people probably agree with him.
People who take time out on an evening to go and sit in a QT audience are those who are interested and informed to some degree about Politics.And there is another factor that possibly is coming into play here, and that is what happened in 2010. Lets be honest, the debates then were utterly crap. Silly soundbite exchages that did not dig into issues, or allow in the format for close scrutiny of claims, context or factual analysis. The debates were nonsensical. Somebody on QT said the media was more transfixed on who looked good etc, and that is probably painfully close to the truth. Clegg won most of them and lets see what subsequently happened to him at the election
That being the case, the debates are of no consequence, serve no purpose and are mildly degrading for the participants in my view.
That Cameron has had the balls to say no and to stand by his terms is a good thing in my view. Haters are always gonna hate, but QT showed that many people probably agree with him.
The debates attract the more mainstream audience, you cannot compare the two.
p.s. he didn't have the balls to say no from the start, he said no as his worming out tactics of insisting its only 'fair' if parties ruled by ofcom to be 'minor'
were represented, didn't work. He got his way in increasing the parties represented, then bottled it.Edited by Yazar on Saturday 7th March 11:05
MarshPhantom said:
Yazar said:
fatboy b said:
I admire Cameron's stance. fk you media, I'm in charge of the country, not you lot. Good show!
Once the election period starts he is no longer 'in charge' as such, just another candidate begging for votes.k you media, I'm in charge of the country, not you lot. Good show!t.gregf40 said:
Not really - he doesn't answer to broadcasters! Only left wing people see this as weak - and they won't vote for him anyway...
The people, left right and centre see him exactly the same- completely inconsitent (to put it politey).2009 On the record
chicken FRITter at last elections said:
'I've been absolutely clear for over a year that we should have television debates in this country between the leaders,'' Mr Cameron told Sky News.
I cannot believe that the Prime Minister is still sitting on the fence.
I can't work out this morning whether he's dithering or bottling, I expect it's a combination of both. But come on Gordon, get off the fence, agree to the debate, bring it on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/6242426/David-Cameron-accuses-Gordon-Brown-of-bottling-television-debate-plans.htmlI cannot believe that the Prime Minister is still sitting on the fence.
I can't work out this morning whether he's dithering or bottling, I expect it's a combination of both. But come on Gordon, get off the fence, agree to the debate, bring it on
NoNeed said:
I don't see it as inconsistaant as dave is the only consistant one of the lot. He was happy with the debates as they were but Labour wanted UKIP to take tory votes, it is they that wanted to change the rules in their favour not Dave.
You need to check the timeline.Ofcom assessed UKIP as a major party a few months ago. This means UKIP 'have' to be in the debates- 'no ifs or buts'
Ofcom announced it in the morning, Cameron was straight on the news in the afternoon demanding that Greens (minor party status) be included
When the broadcasters agreed to this, he panicked and started asking for even more parties. When they said yes to a 7 way
he started to demand it be brought forward to even before the election period had begun He doesn't come out well, no matter how hard the handful of Cameron Fan Club members on here try to say otherwise.
MarshPhantom said:
RichB said:
MarshPhantom said:
...I can't imagine that the Tories were uninvolved in the promotion of these debates via the Murdoch empire.
Fair enough, ones imagination is all one can use when there are no facts. 
gregf40 said:
MarshPhantom said:
The way they are handling this could make you wonder about their ability to run the country.
Not really - he doesn't answer to broadcasters! Only left wing people see this as weak - and they won't vote for him anyway...ked up badly. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.MarshPhantom said:
gregf40 said:
MarshPhantom said:
The way they are handling this could make you wonder about their ability to run the country.
Not really - he doesn't answer to broadcasters! Only left wing people see this as weak - and they won't vote for him anyway...ked up badly. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.ked up' when the debates have not even taken place and no one knows what the outcome is?Yazar said:
NoNeed said:
I don't see it as inconsistaant as dave is the only consistant one of the lot. He was happy with the debates as they were but Labour wanted UKIP to take tory votes, it is they that wanted to change the rules in their favour not Dave.
You need to check the timeline.Ofcom assessed UKIP as a major party a few months ago. This means UKIP 'have' to be in the debates- 'no ifs or buts'
So as it stands UKIP are not a major party for general elections.
So your assertion is plain rubbish
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff