Tv

The stakes have been raised, at least psychologically, for Thursday night’s debate. Today’s YouGov poll has Labour four points ahead, in contrast to a two point Tory lead in their last survey. This is being seen in Westminster as a Paxman bounce for Miliband. If this Labour leads is still in place at the end of the Easter weekend, Tory nerves will begin to fray. Thursday’s debate will be a crowded affair with seven leaders on stage. Despite it being a two hour debate, there’ll only be time for four questions. As I say in the Mail On Sunday, the debate will almost certainly turn into Cameron versus the rest as they

The treasurer of one of Manchester’s Conservative clubs is a lifelong Labour voter who votes only as a mark of respect for his father, who always voted Labour. He’s one of the few club regulars we met who bothers to vote, but he never watches the news and takes pride in knowing nothing about politics. I was in Manchester looking for disaffected voters with the World Service’s political correspondent Rob Watson; Manchester Central had the lowest turnout at the last election. We talked to a lot of people who had a similar attitude – ‘I’d rather be a hypocrite than powerless’, said one man in Wetherspoon’s. It’s a bit like

So both Labour and the Lib Dems have responded to the TV debates with caution and enthusiasm respectively. A Labour spokesman said ‘based on the broadcasters’ proposals we have accepted and plan to attend all three debates on April 2nd, 16th and the 30th. If the Tories have confirmed they are to attend one of these debates then that is progress. It is one down, two to go. But no-one should be fooled: David Cameron is running scared of a head-to-head televised debate with Ed Miliband’. The Lib Dems have also welcomed the move as ‘progress’, with a spokesman saying: ‘ ‘It’s good news that we are finally making progress

Is Jacob Rees-Mogg confident about reelection in North East Somerset? For the latest Mini Election video, I visited the West Country to speak to Jacob (and his son Peter) about his efforts to hold onto his marginal seat in the upcoming election. Although he was victorious in 2010 with a comfortable majority of 4,91,  the constituency was held by Labour — albeit under different boundaries — so he has been campaigning almost non-stop for the last few years. Does he think that British elections are generally becoming too American? We also discussed his long-held belief that the Conservative Party needs to have an electoral pact with Ukip and whether it is

Do voters care about David Cameron’s decision to avoid some of the TV debates? A new poll from ComRes/ITV News out today suggests that although his reputation may be suffering from his current position, it won’t make any difference to how people will vote on May 7. Just under two thirds agreed that Cameron had damaged his reputation over the debates furore, while 59 per cent thought he was being ‘cowardly in trying to avoid the debates’. According to the poll, 71 per cent said they thought the debates should go ahead if Cameron does not take part and 63 per cent believe there should be an empty chair left out for the

I wish I could get worked up about the televised election debates (or lack thereof). I can understand that it’s a very important to the broadcasters, who don’t mind reducing the campaign to three US-style standoffs. But if they don’t go ahead, is it really an outrage? Is our democracy really the poorer for it? When broadcasters are angry, they have a platform to vent – which is why the furore is been given disproportional coverage. But without the debates, the election will go on in the way that every election before 2010 went on. And I rather welcome that. The TV debates do make good entertainment but they do rather take over the campaign – and put the whole

So David Cameron won’t debate anyone unless the broadcasters agree to his exact specifications, Ed Miliband won’t debate Clegg in Cameron’s place and has instead offered Harriet Harman, and the broadcasters are threatening to empty chair anyone who refuses to turn up to any of their debates. It’s fair to say that the TV debates are firstly very unlikely to happen and secondly in the most unimpressive mess. Though the Prime Minister is ducking out of them for the selfish reasons outlined here, the blame must ultimately lie with the broadcasters for making it possible for him to do so. They have managed to mess up at every stage of

The broadcasters have now said they could be willing to host a TV debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband on another date if that means the programmes will actually take place. Though this shows willing on the part of the broadcasters, who have messed up the debates with proposals that would inevitably end up mired in a row, it does not make them more likely to happen. It would be easy for any of the parties who feel hard done by, particularly the Lib Dems, to apply for an injunction against the head-to-head taking place on the grounds that they will have no chance to respond to any claims

Ancients would have been astonished that parties never debate against each other in open, public forum except on the telly before general elections — and even then they do their best to resist. The reason is that politicians understand ‘debate’ only in terms of internal parliamentary procedures where the outcomes are entirely predictable. The result is usually one long exercise in freedom of screech. Look at PMQs. In democratic Athens, the subjects for debate were determined by a people’s Council of 500. These were appointed by lot, 50 from each of the ten tribes, from among the male citizens of Athens over 30. They served for one year, never more than