Cameron clearly has the most to lose from a huge series of debates (Gordon Brown is apparently now calling for six – yes, six – leader debates as well as Chancellor / shadow debates and Foreign Secretary / shadow debates).

One debate, three main party leaders, let’s get on with it. You could also have a separate debate between the leaders of UKIP, Greens and the BNP for the sake of balance.

Another Smithson bet looks like paying off.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/10/18/can-we-now-cross-this-one-off/

“Cameron would appear to be following the Tony Blair plan from 1997. Agree the principle but let the notion get bogged down by the detail. Who can blame him?”

In fact he’s gone one better inasmuch as he called for the debate first, while Brown’s idea (how many debates??) merely looks typically loopy.

The boy king is clever.

Gordon wanted ‘at least six.’

How to pretend you want a debate, whilst ensuring your proposal is so daft it will never be agreed to, by Gordon Brown.

But then if Gordon *really* wants a debate, there is an easy compromise. Three debates with all the leaders.

Why is Camera-off backing off from TV debates?

One imagines it’s because he’s as aware of his massive intellectual shortcomings as the rest of us. At least he’s not in denial about them like most of New Labour’s so-called ‘big beasts’ are about theirs.

@ cjcjc:

“The boy king is clever”

Actually (and God knows I have never accused him of being a savvy strategist before) I think it is Brown who is now making hay on this one. He has turned around his initial reluctance on the debates by insisting on a series of them. It is difficult to see how people could fault him for proposing that there be more than one debate. Meanwhile, Cameron looks slippery for appearing to renege on his initial commitment.

If the debates do not now happen, at this stage it will be Cameron who is blamed for torpedoing them: he has played political brinkmanship very badly. Mind you, that is not to say that Brown could not still mess it up. He could conform to type and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if, for instance, everyone agreed to a series of three debates, and Brown refused to cooperate because he could not get six.

4 – yup, firsts in PPE from Oxford just fall out of the sky you know. And when Vernon Bogdanor decribed him as one of the ablest students he ever taught he was just lying.

On the debates, this all looks like both sides trying to blame the other for making sure that no debates happen. Because Brown’s ‘offer’ to have seventy four debates starting tomorrow, all channels all hours, is palpably designed to be rejected.

I’d agree with LFAT inasmuch as the leader’s debate should be one-off triple header between Brown, Cameron and Clegg.

However, Labour’s idea of six debates has considerable merit if the other five debates encompass the three great offices of state, Treasury, Home Office and Foreign Office plus Education and Health.

I’d even be inclined to throw the Tories a bone on the economy and make that one two-a-side, with each party fielding their respective leads on the Treasury and Business. The Tories might be more inclined to go for that format because it allows them to field Ken Clarke as backup to Osborne, although at the cost of allowing Mandelson into the mix, while I’m sure the LDs would be confident that Vince Cable will more than hold his own in that, or any other, company.

The Home Affairs debate could also be run in the same manner, combining Home Affairs and Justice as could the FO one by adding defence to the line-up, although I think Labour would baulk at that due to Ainsworth being a weak link.

I love that LfaT skirts the nub of the point. That Cameron would crash and burn put under any actual scrutiny – much like each and every major Tory proposal.

One debate, three main party leaders, let’s get on with it.

No numb-nuts, we compromise. Cameron wants one, Brown wants six, and Clegg wants to wet his beak.

Easy. We have 3, and Clegg can play along as long as he agrees to wear a silly hat.

I’m just off to pledge a few quid to the “Buy Osborne a calculator fund”.

Actually (and God knows I have never accused him of being a savvy strategist before) I think it is Brown who is now making hay on this one.

*cough*

I’d hold that accusation if I were you – Mandelson’s running the election strategy and this has all the hallmarks of being his work.

8 – at least six, of which he would be in all of them and no other party leader would.

If there’s any move towards a compromise on the leaders’ debates, Brown can then demand six more departmental debates…

Brown is calling for six but I doubt he do one, he knows Cameron’s has backed off so the blustering goes on, it does not matter really no party has made me think yes your the one I’ll vote for.

I’m not sure Brown is “making hay” exactly – especially as there was that “will he, won’t he” period during the Labour conference – after it had been spun that he was prepared to debate. As ever, he is just coming across as weird/petulant.

How many debates are there in the US – three?

That would be fine.

How many debates are there in the US – three?

That would be fine.

And a vice-presidential debate. For which the nearest UK equivalent would, presumably, be a debate between the Chancellor and Shadow Chancellors.

In the end there were over 10 debates at least Obama took part in. What is Cameron afraid of eh? Being shown up?

We all know that a desperate Brown would use these debates to make policy announcements that should be made in Parliament. I have no doubt that the dastardly Brown would use this incumbency advantage to try to switch the debate from the real issues.

@Praguetory: Now I have heard it all. You are against more debates because you are concerned about the primacy of parliament?

14 – or the deputy leaders? Hague v Harman v Cable. Be reasonably good value I’d have thought…

David Cameron’s shying away from it because someone must have told him that his plasticky ways no longer wash with the viewers and that he comes across as wooden, manipulative and insincere. I never really understood all this “charismatic” stuff about Cameron anyway (maybe because Gordon Brown may have been the yardstick…) but, for sure, when I saw him on the Andrew Marr show he struck me as a really bad orator.

Oh yes – I would love to see a deputies debate!

What is Cameron afraid of??!!

I love it.

Brown has dithered and dithered (no surprise) until Mandy came up with this six debate masterplan…

In fact the boy king probably doesn’t need to worry too much anyway.
The public are completely turned off by / don’t believe Brown’s endless tractor production statistics.

Some Labour peeress was trying a rather aggressive “thanks to us, you’ve never had it so good” line on the (radio) Any Questions audience on Friday evening – provoking a somewhat unhappy response…

Brown is doomed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates

Three presidential debates, plus one VP debate is becoming the norm.

But Gordon wants Six, in a variety of formats, with Gordon setting the agenda of course.

If Gordon wants it, all he has to do is say he would agree to three leader debates without conditions. Simples.

I shan’t be holding my breath.

A deputy’s debate wouldn’y really work because the deputy leader’s post in British politics is only a notional one and has no official parliamentary status.

The Veep’s debate in US elections matters because in the event of the President becoming incapacitated or dying in office, the Veep automatically takes the hot seat.

That’s not the case in the UK where, strictly speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the next in line of succession, but only temporarily and until the ruling party can elect a new leader.

As the current three deputies all occupy different portfolios, there’s little to be gained from putting them head-to-head when the alternative is a series of potentially meaty portfolio specific debates.

As long as Brown doesn’t use the debates to unveil policy, I would be very happy for it to go ahead. Just as he does in PMQs Cameron will run rings around Brown.

That’s not the case in the UK where, strictly speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the next in line of succession, but only temporarily and until the ruling party can elect a new leader.

There’s no constitutional rule or convention on who is ‘next in line’. When a party leader is deposed he acts as caretaker leader himself until a new leader can be elected (cf Blair, Thatcher, Duncan Smith and the rest). If a party leader dies, and thus can’t be a stand-in, there’s no rule as to who takes over. When John Smith died, Gordon Brown was shadow Chancellor, but it was Margaret Beckett who took over as caretaker. The only modern British Prime Minister to die in office (Palmerston) was instantly succeeded by his foreign minister.

Would anyone suggest that Barber was the second most important politician in Heath’s cabinet? Or that Macmillan’s natural successor was Selwyn Lloyd?

The most ‘obvious’ candidate for a debate would be Lord Mandelson, as the most influential cabinet minister – but who should it be against? Clarke is the direct shadow, but is nothing like an equivalent in terms of control/direction of the party.

In my absence I see that cjcjcjcjcjcjcjcjc has fully disposed of the pretence of being MOR and has fully come out in his adoration of the ‘boy king’ as he so lovingly names him.

*vomit*

It’s not rocket science to figure out that whoever starts to step away from the idea of debates looks like a right tit, so for know it seems D-Cam has that moniker but who knows, Brown could snatch it off him at any moment.

3 debates is fine, 6 is absurd. 3 is enough to put Cameron under scrutiny. If Brown is willing to do 6 what does he have against 3?

We all know that a desperate Brown would use these debates to make policy announcements that should be made in Parliament.

If these debates take place in the election Parliament would have already been dissolved, all MPs would simply be candidates and they wouldn’t be policy announcements they’d be manifesto announcements….

Tim J:

With the effective demise of the position of Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is notionally the second most senior office after the Prime Minister.

In practice, however, exactly who takes over on a temporary basis will be a decision for the ruling party to which the Queen will assent as a matter of course – to do otherwise would spark a major constitutional crisis.

Oh and I’d prefer four debates:

Three with main party leaders on economy, foreign and domestic policy and one with the smaller parties leaders.

28 – really? Constitutionally, the position is still that the Prime Minister is primus inter pares. Notionally, all cabinet posts are equally senior – there is officially no hierarchy in cabinet.

That obviously isn’t the case in reality, but if we look at it on a practical basis, it’s certainly arguable that Mandelson has a more influential position in cabinet than Darling does.

Mr Cameron has proposed the most slimline option, involving one debate with all three leaders.

On Saturday the Telegraph’s Melissa Kite reported that the Tory leader was morphing into Camera-off and had rejected the idea of TV debates

Does not follow!

What you are fogetting is how obessed by the West Wing the Tory leadership is. In both the Ritchie-Barlet and Santos-Vinick contests there was only one debate, and (being TV) they were amazing barnstormers. Cameron wants that.

Cameron wants one debate where he can dazzle. He wants old Tories in 20 years to tell young ones about it. He wants Event TV.

Brown wants 6 debates. 6! Have you any idea how boring that sounds to most people (non political obessives). The first will get viewers but the second or the third even? I don’t think even Labour party loyalists could stomach 6 hours of Brown’s monotone reading out tractor statistics in the same answer to what ever question he is asked.

American presidential elections have many debates but they are not just 4 weeks long. 1, manybe 20 is really all we can cope with in a GE campaign

“And when Vernon Bogdanor decribed him as one of the ablest students he ever taught he was just lying.”

Yes, but the standard isn’t very high at Brasenose.

Haw haw haw.

Goodness me DDDDDDDDHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGG, can you not tell that “boy king” is meant to be disparaging?

Which is not to say that in some ways he is not impressive….the most impressive to me being that he is simply not Brown.

No, I can’t when it is surrounded by so much of your fawning.

Can you actually point to any “fawning” above?

Comment 2, (in 13 you perpetuate the Brown=weird mythology), 20.

Cheers.

‘The most ‘obvious’ candidate for a debate would be Lord Mandelson, as the most influential cabinet minister – but who should it be against? Clarke is the direct shadow, but is nothing like an equivalent in terms of control/direction of the party.’

I doubt anyone will stay awake through Brown vs Cameron long enough to learn who won; on the other hand Mandleson vs Clarke would offer some entertainment value but Mandleson is universally loathed by those who would instinctively vote Labour, while Clarke, though marginal within the Tory party, is awarded some degree of grudging respect.

I can’t imagine anything worse for Labour than a Mandelson – Clarke debate. Mandelson would win the argument, but Clarke would win the voters over.

I want as many debates as possible, and for as many as possible to have just Brown and Cameron in.

Ok, let’s have three debates, one including the SNP (and maybe other minority party leaders, but definitely Salmond…because he’s worth it).

And a separate debate for Darling, Osborne & Cable (no prizes for guessing which 2 wouldn’t like the sound of that idea).

There. Not so hard, surely?

No-one should be surprised to the Murdoch press making a mockery of Parliament and the election process. He has no love of Britain, nor does he give a fuck about Parliament either. These debates are flawed because they are designed for an American system, not a Parliamentary democracy. However, it seems that no-one has pointed this out to the SKY suits.

Unlike America, we do not elect a Prime Minister, Chancellor or PPS etc. We elect a Parliament. It is then the job of the Parliament (via the Monarch’s command) to ‘elect’ a Government.

Brown, Cameron and Clegg’s only link to the electorate is in their own Constituencies. It is completely unfair and one sided to imagine that only Brown and Cameron get to carve up the photo opportunities and assume that only those two are worthy of public scrutiny. Why should the minor Party leaders be denied the same platform? Given that the big three are competing every mainland seat, they are also competing against every minor Party and every independent in the Country so it is only fair that the SNP et al get to question Brown and Cameron as well.

I can well understand Cameron’s reluctance to get involved in six debates. He is a flimsy insignificant man who cannot be bothered with getting into a real debate, instead relying on quick sound bites and ‘witty one liners. Even the Tories on this board realise this and have been forced into bluster in a rather pathetic attempt to shore up Cameron’s cracking façade.

Newsflash gentlemen: It isn’t working. Everyone has seen through your sad excuses for Call me Pastry puff.

41 – current predictions are for a Tory majority of 44. It’s obviously working reasonably well.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/

@37 – haha – not sure any of those is “fawning” exactly.

But Brown’s weirdness is not mythical.
He is f*cking weird.

Yep, they’re fawning and you confuse your opinion of Brown as weird with some sort of fact.

What legitimate reasons are there against six debates? Are we against debates or something? Do we feel these politicians work too hard already? Not interested in politics enough? cjcjc? Tim J? Let’s hear the excuses from you Tories please.

I’m very amused by the people in this thread saying that Cameron would be ‘shown up’ by more debates. Has anyone seen PMQs for the last two years or so? I watch it almost every week to see DC dancing rings around Brown, who is renowned for his inability to think on his feet and, well, tell the truth.

Sunny, the more debates you have, the more voter fatigue you’ll get. You forget that we are starting from a zero base here. The US has established political debates as part of the election campaign and it works well, even when choosing the candidates. My preference for one debate is driven by both the practicalities of organising one and the desire not to ruin the experiment at the first attempt.

LFAT:

You’d think you were bias…

45 – why not 10? Or 25? Or 144? We do like politics don’t we?

There are a few reasons, and they revolve around the fact that the idea for six debates is deliberately unworkable.

(i) Given that these would be televised, and an hour long, public participation would drop to subterranean levels. Broadcasters aren’t going to be keen on sacrificing an hour of prime time for the fifth hour of debate between Brown and Cameron.

(ii) If you’re having six debates, you’re going to get a lot of calls from nationalist parties to get involved – do they come into the main debate? Or separate ones? How many debates are we having now?

(iii) Six debates! Come on! It’s hard enough struggling through a five minute PPB. I like Wagner – but I don’t want to watch the Ring Cycle back to back.

(iv) If the idea is that the policy debates spell out the precise difference between the parties (or, as Brown would see it, gives Cameron the most opportunity of making a gaffe) then a debate really isn’t the best forum. The idea that a debate is where policies are decided between is wholy erroneous. They enable viewers to make a personal judgement between the debaters. Remember when JFK won the debate against Nixon through his masterly summation of Democrat policy? No, it was because Nixon looked sweaty.

What do you have against one debate? The three party leaders, (relatively) high levels of public interest, a chance to see some political theatre – what don’t you like about it?

OK – why not six. Go for it.

But let’s not pretend this isn’t anything other than a ploy from the (WEIRD) man who has turned dithering into an Olympic event.

DHG – you have a low fawning threshold!

“What legitimate reasons are there against six debates?”

From a practical point of view it’s going to be very difficult to get the various TV stations to agree how many and which ones they will be showing, especially those that depend on commercial revenue.

Frankly I don’t believe Brown wants six debates anymore than
I believe his cancellation of the expected 2007 election had nothing to do with opinion polls. If he’d said 3 debates I would believe he was serious.

Indeed – Brown/Mandy have worked that out too.

Tim J @ 41
Nobody disputes how unpopular the Labour is, however, I doubt there is much enthusiasm out there for Murdoch’s little tame puppy. This is why you guys are keen to shield him away from a debate when his actual policies will come under scrutiny.

LFAT @ 46
“I watch it almost every week to see DC dancing rings around Brown, who is renowned for his inability to think on his feet and, well, tell the truth.”
What ever PMQ is, it has nothing to do with discussions regarding policy. It is more to do with sharp one-liners, sound bites and ‘hilarious’ quips. A series of one-hour debates on the pressing issues of the day would expose his empty rhetoric and slick presentation as vacuous nonsense. A nice side parting and talking about ‘the family’ may go well in the conference hall in front of the pissed soaked hangers and floggers, but in the real World it will come across as tedious. A fact that you and your fellow travellers are all too aware of, as we can see here.

Tim J @ 48
What a feeble attempt at trying to shield your man from the general public.

(i) We have BBC 4, the Parliament channel and the BBC news channel.
(ii) That is going to happen away, why not include them too?
(iii) Surely that helps your guy out? If people get bored with him, they will turn over to watch the X factor and miss him make a twat of himself.
What?
(iv) A debate is not the best platform to examine policy? Sheesh.

If Brown is so keen, then floating six as the only number of debates is a very funny way to go about it.
Also if he’s keen, how does that square with this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/oct/19/brown-cameron-clegg-questioned

FWIW, I don’t think either Brown or Cameron will especially shine, the former being too clunky, boring or inappropriately blokeish/happy on orders (Christ, his peculiarly-timed smiles…), the latter being too sheeny. glib etc. Little mentioned on here (very anglo at times this place…) or elsewhere, is the one who’d really get Brown’s goat, make him lose the plot big time, and that is Alex Salmond. Salmond could point to having been further Left and more Scottish than Brown in administration, both points hitting at the heart of Brown’s self-image.
By rights, at least one debate ought to feature Salmond, but there’s no way Brown will countenance that.

Alisdair,

Salmond, quite apart from being able to fluster both Brown & “Call me” (worth the admission price for that alone), also has the small advantage of knowing what he’s talking about…(90%+ of the time, anyway). A wee look at his past c.v. gives a nice comparison with some of our friends in Westminster :

“1978- 1980: Assistant Economist, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

1980-1982: Assistant Economist, Royal Bank of Scotland

1982-1984: Oil Economist, Royal Bank of Scotland

1984- 1987: Oil Economist and Bank Economist, Royal Bank of Scotland

Visiting professor of economics at Strathclyde University”

As a euphoric Glaswegian might say – “Tha’s no tae bad”. Or even “Tha’s aaright”. Possibly. Might be stretching it a little.

Dead right Andy, and with the added bonus he’s the one to make Brown lose his rag, and emphasise Cameron’s Southern Englishness…probably why the smart money’s on Wee Eck getting shut out.

AC @ 56

Surely shutting out Salmond goes against the rules for a fair election. Given that Brown, Cameron and Clegg will be putting candidates against everyone of Salmond’s candidates, surely that gives the Brown/Cameron/Clegg axis an unfair advantage at an election? I thought that the ‘Representation of the people’s act is supposed to stop this kind of thing?

This is exactly the type of thing that really annoys me about SKY’s proposal. We have laws and regulations about how elections are conducted, but Murdoch’s money and influence is more important than any of that. When Murdoch thinks it should happen, then it does. Never mind the fact that we need to run an election, never mind that we have drafted laws to ensure fair play, none of that matters. Sky want to import an American idea into British politics and nobody feels able to point out that, actually it does not fit into British politics particularly well. So our entire election process has to be skewed in order to make Murdoch yet more powerful.

Jim (57) I fully agree.Too many wonks obsessed with the West Wing and US models of politics.