Tag: David Cameron

ELECTION TV DEBATES:ARE THEY CERTAIN?

THE COWARD’S CHARTER

Things have gone mighty quiet about the election TV debates.

The TV companies have set the dates and made the draw for who goes first but the Prime Minister has yet to confirm his participation. So the big questions are, will David Cameron take part? If not will the TV companies dare to empty chair him?

The endless wrangles have been yet another blow to the prestige of politicians. After 2010 the public now expect their potential rulers to subject themselves to this sort of scrutiny. This principle should have underpinned the discussions this time acknowledging that it was going to be more complicated than five years ago. This is because we have a coalition and potentially other players because of the fracturing of politics away from the traditional parties.

Instead of trying to find a way through the difficulties, the TV companies have had to engage in a game of cat and mouse with David Cameron. The Tories have the age old fear of all incumbents that they can only lose by taking part. They fear putting themselves on the same level as their opponents. They also fear a “Natalie Bennett” episode.

This is nothing new. In my early years as a broadcaster my attempts to get constituency debates between candidates were often thwarted by what I came to call the “coward’s clause”. Election law required all candidates to agree to take part. It gave incumbent MPs a veto and both Labour and Tory MPs played that card. Later on the law was changed to say that all must be invited to take part but none could veto. Hence the opportunity for an empty chair arises in relation to the 2015 Election Debates.

It will be very interesting to see if Cameron dares risk an empty chair in the Sky/Channel 4 debate on April 30. On the other hand would the broadcasters actually have Ed Miliband on his own?

FORMAT CHEATS VOTERS

Leaving the question of Tory participation aside, there are other problems with these debates. We are not going to have a threesome of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. I think the coalition partners and their potential replacement as the head of the government should have debated together. Cameron and Clegg would have both have had to defend their record in government and criticise each other with Miliband throwing in his two-penneth. The coalition’s record would have been debated.

Given the Lib Dems current weak showing I agree with the Cameron Miliband head to head bringing us a debate between the only two people who credibly can be Prime Minister.

But the third debate should have only involved parties fielding candidates throughout the United Kingdom. The arrangements for not one, but two debates, on April 2 on ITV and the BBC on April 16 are a mess. 7 parties will take part including the SNP and Plaid. The argument for the latter two is presumably on the basis that they could be players in deciding the policies of the UK government in coalition negotiations. Well what about the Democratic Unionists? They may well be players in the post election stramash.

Leaving aside the politics of the “hydra” debates, what will voters get out of seven people all trying to have their say. There is a great danger it will either be a messy shouting match or so dull and formulaic that people will switch off.

CONSTITUENCY FOCUS: HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON.

UKIP are fading a little in the polls and the North West is not the most promising region of the country for them. Some have their eyes on Bootle where Deputy UKIP leader Paul Nuttall faces a massive Labour majority. More likely is Heywood and Middleton where last autumn’s by election left Labour’s Liz McInness just 617 ahead of UKIP.

She should be saved by the bigger turnout of Labour voters in a General Election but a word of caution. UKIP have a good candidate in John Bickley and working class voters, disillusioned by Labour, can see from the by election evidence that three hundred odd votes could have seen Labour ousted.

 

ELECTED MAYOR FOR GREATER MANCHESTER?

 

 

DEVOLUTION TURMOIL.

 

Manchester has firmly resisted the government’s backing for elected mayors, but that could be about to change. Tory sources at their conference in Birmingham were suggesting that in return for extra powers for the city region, Labour would concede the concept of an elected mayor for the Combined Authority.

 

The Scottish Referendum aftermath has sparked a feverish debate about how the North of England should be governed. On Merseyside it has caused a fresh outbreak of tension between Liverpool and Wirral. The city’s mayor Joe Anderson, denied the leadership of the Combined Authority by Wirral leader Phil Davies, declared that if the government was going to decentralise powers and fiscal responsibility “it would need to know that this is not being managed by a group of part time councillors who meet every four to six weeks.”

 

The Mayor claims that the Liverpool City Region is in danger of being left behind when the government devolves extra powers because the area views things through “the short-sighted prism of local politics”.

 

Wirral Council would see things differently and is spearheading a drive to widen the debate about how the whole of the North can benefit from devolution, not just the city regions.

 

It is very much in the interests of business investment and people’s welfare, that the North’s politicians representing both city regions and the large number of towns and rural areas in between can speak with a united voice on a complete blueprint for the future government of the north. If they can’t then the winners will be a more powerful Scotland and Borisland to the south!

 

TORIES UPBEAT.

 

The Conservatives left Birmingham in upbeat mood despite polling predictions that they can’t win May’s General Election.

 

They’ve decided to take UKIP on following the latest defection. Delegates delighted in telling me how ex Tory MP Mark Reckless had been chased out of a Rochester pub along with UKIP leader Nigel Farage by Conservatives angered by their former MP’s treachery.

This must be the right approach. There is no appeasing people who want to take us out of Europe. They must be opposed and the British people warned about the prospects for UK business outside the EU.

In an otherwise excellent speech, David Cameron laid a trap for himself over Europe by promising that the free movement of immigrants would be sorted. Free movement is an integral part of the free market and he will find it very difficult to get concessions when he goes into negotiations if he wins the election.

 

At a number of fringe meetings I attended, Tory delegates were advised that if the UK goes into the talks with threats and ultimatums, it will get nowhere. The better approach would be to find allies who want change as well and work with them.

 

Many Tory representatives felt it was the first really conservative speech David Cameron had made with no mention of gay marriage or green issues but plenty on tax cuts. Just how they will be paid for whilst fulfilling much delayed promises to bring the deficit down to zero remains to be seen. Also for all the signs of recovery, it is not being felt in the pay packets of people in the north.

 

That’s a message that Ed Miliband hopes will keep Heywood and Middleton out of the clutches of UKIP in Thursday’s by election.

 

 

GENERAL ELECTION DEBATES:WILL THEY HAPPEN?

 

THE BACKGROUND

Did you see Salmond and Darling shouting over each other in the recent debate on Scottish independence? Things are hotting up north of the border! The police are being called in to maintain order at meetings and to ensure there is no intimidation at the polling stations in a fortnight’s time.

 

So back to that debate where the moderator failed to control the Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond and the leader of Better Together Alistair Darling. But it was lively and so was the audience.

 

Will we have a similar debate for the whole of the UK next year at the General Election? It shouldn’t really be necessary to ask that question considering the success of the first party leader debates ever in 2010. Twenty million people watched the three debates including the young and those who usually consider political programmes a waste of time. The first debate produced the historic initial surge in support for Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

They were a valuable new feature of our general election campaign and their future should be secure, but it isn’t.

 

This autumn broadcasters and politicians will be locked in prolonged negotiations with no certainty that we will get debates next year. There are a number of questions.

 

WILL THEY HAPPEN AT ALL?

 

For decades the debates never happened largely because whoever was in power felt they had everything to lose by allowing their opponents the even playing field of a studio debate. They only happened in 2010 because Sky threatened to go ahead with an empty chair if Gordon Brown, David Cameron or Nick Clegg failed to turn up.

 

The Conservatives have been prevaricating for months. Heaven knows why. Ed Miliband’s “oddness” should work in the Tories favour in this image obsessed world. By now we ought to know for certain that the debates are to take place with all the details in place. The closer we get to May 7th with the political temperature rising, the more difficult will become the negotiations. There were 76 clauses covering the conduct of the 2010 debates!

 

HOW MANY DEBATES?

 

David Cameron has suggested that the debates dominated the campaign to the exclusion of local activity. There is some truth in that. We were either analysing the last encounter or speculating about the next. This was all people were talking about on the doorstep. Cameron has suggested there might be only one debate or if there were more then they should be spread across January to May next year.

 

WHAT ABOUT UKIP?

 

The biggest problem for the broadcasters is the rise of UKIP. The BBC, ITV and Sky all have guidelines about who should appear in programmes and for how long. I should know. I spent enough time hovering over a stop watch in the campaigns from 1974-2005.

 

The guidelines refer to due weight being given to major parties and appropriate coverage to others. None of that helps us with UKIP. They will have at least one MP by the General Election (Douglas Carswell in Clacton), they won the European Election, have a number of councillors and a respectable opinion poll rating. To deny Nigel Farage his place alongside Cameron, Miliband and Clegg would anger the British voters.

 

I don’t agree with anything UKIP stands for. They are edging us towards the disaster of the exit door from the EU, but they represent a distinctive point of view in this General Election and they must be heard.

 

THE AUDIENCE.

 

In 2010 members of the public were allowed their foot in the door, but only to pose a question and then shut up. Time must be given to allow the questioner to comment on the initial answers given. That right would not be abused because the audience will have been vetted most carefully for party balance.

 

We need to hear PDQ that the debates are on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

JOBS BONANZA OR COST OF LIVING CRISIS?

.

 

CARNEY BELIEVES LABOUR’S GOT A POINT.

 

Mark Carney’s been agonising about raising interest rates for a year now. Does the Governor of the Bank of England believe Labour’s got a point when it refers to the cost of living crisis? Does Mr Carney fear that any increase in mortgage rates will be too much for the fragile position of consumers who’ve not had a decent pay rise for years? If Carney believes Ed Miliband is on to something then maybe voters will ask themselves that crucial question next May: Do I feel better off?

 

I still think David Cameron will be returned as leader of the largest party because this week’s figures show we are now on a sustained path of growth but the honeymoon is over for Mark Carney. He’s beginning to gain a reputation as a ditherer, sending out contradictory messages on when he will raise interest rates.

 

A year ago Carney’s “forward guidance” was that 7% unemployment was to be the trigger for interest rates to rise. This week unemployment fell to 6.4% down 437,000 in the last year. That’s the biggest fall in unemployment in 25 years. The fall is across the board with the number of long term and young people out of work falling too, yet there is no prospect of an interest rate rise this year. There are fears that if the 0.5% rate is held too long and inflation kicks off, the rise might have to be sharp and damaging to the economy.

 

It looks as if the failure of wage growth is really worrying the Bank of England. Labour hammers out its message that the average household is £1600 worse off than in 2010. Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980 by asking people that simple question about whether they were better off under President Carter. The question is now associated with an almost mythical potency to win elections.

 

Labour points to inflation running at 1.9% with pay increases at 0.6%, the lowest since 2001 when records began. How then has consumer spending recovered if people are being squeezed between paltry pay rises and continuing, if modest, inflation?

 

Some experts point to the growth in house prices which is now beginning to filter through to the north from London. The government’s help to buy scheme may be indirectly driving consumer spending. What happens when the bubble bursts?

 

So as we take our August holidays we have to make an assessment of who’s message is getting across. Labour’s cost of living crisis or the government’s view. That is that they have turned round the economy and protected the worst off by raising the income tax threshold, frozen fuel prices and acted on council tax and energy bills.