Sky TV Debate

I've just watched Sky News' leadership debate.  It came alive during an encounter on 24 hour drinking but was otherwise a fairly tame affair.  The candidates are now incredibly familar with their messages and both were able to repeat their familar campaign themes.  David Davis emphasised his opposition to everything Tony Blair stood for, his belief in lower taxation and his determination to champion the victims of state failure.  David Cameron spotlighted the extent of his parliamentary support and repeated his themes of change and hope.

Sky had arranged for a number of experts to put pointed questions to the candidates but none were given enough time to really put the contenders on the spot.  An expert from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Robert Chote, pressed David Cameron, for example, on his 'sharing the proceeds of growth' soundbite.  Mr Chote outlined a precise economic scenario and asked Mr Cameron to say how much of the economy's proceeds would go to tax cuts and how much to public spending.  Mr Cameron declined to answer - falling back on restating his soundbite.  He chose, instead, to go on the attack - accusing David Davis of failing to heed the message of the last election defeats.  Mr Davis' tax promise amounted to double ham and eggs when the electorate had twice rejected a single portion of ham and eggs.  Mr Davis said that Tories had to make the case for their deepest beliefs - including the case for economy-boosting tax relief.  Speaking about a Sky/YouGov opinion poll that put both contenders behind Gordon Brown, Mr Davis said that what mattered was what the opinion polls said in four years - not now.

Seventeen undecided Tory voters were in the studio to watch the debate.  Five became DD supporters.  Six declared that they would back DC.   

This was the last TV debate and one of Sky's experts, James Brown - formerly of Loaded magazine - noted that the reputation of the whole party had been helped by the civilised nature of the exchanges.  Adam Boulton, Sky's Political Editor, certainly agrees.  This is what he wrote for last Sunday's Telegraph:

"This is the first time any party has forced its candidates to run the gauntlet of hustings in front of activists live on television at the annual party conference. As a follow-up, no aspirant prime ministers in Britain have ever then gone on to confront each other in a series of live television debates, in the way of the two Davids.

Whoever wins, Cameron and Davis have already written themselves into the political history books. By the end of this campaign, the two men will have taken part in three full scale television debates, on BBC1, ITV1 (today at lunchtime), and Sky News (next Thursday), as well as sitting side by side on Radio 4's Woman's Hour and numerous breakfast TV sofas. The campaign will be remembered for these joint appearances. Traditional one-on-one interviews have had less impact, even those conducted by Jeremy Paxman.

The debates have been fresh: the first proper televised events in this country in which the contestants have complied with the requirements of the broadcasting professionals over such vital questions as format and timing. In 1994, the three Labour leadership candidates, Margaret Beckett, John Prescott and Tony Blair did allow television cameras into some of their joint appearances at party meetings. But Labour's sensitivity to media presentation was already well developed and the media were kept at arm's length. Not surprisingly, these dreary events did not attract the public's interest."

See The Telegraph's report on the Sky debate.

Comments

[Barbara Villiers]

Samuel,

Please don't insult my intelligence - I was at the hustings (in the front) and I know exactly who said what.

[James Hellyer]

"The term fiscal refers to government debt, expenditures and revenues."

Temporary confusion with monetary policy. Never mind. Neither are covered "in detail" by the growth rule.

DC doesn't have ANY rule.

[hayek's grandad]

DVA -
I don't think you can hold old votes taken under party rules in the past against people especially against people who were junior members of the parliamentary party at the time. Cameron has made his view very clear in the last few weeks. If he backtracks on his statements during the last few weeks then fair enough skewer him (especially if you are a Labour supporter) but please don't dredge up complex votes from the past to accuse a fellow conservative of being a liar just because you'd rather someone else led the party. It does none of us any good.

[Barbara Villiers]

What kind of apologist crap is that Gramps?

He dissembled today, no dammit, he LIED about how he voted. I'm not sure what the Whip was on that vote but that is NOT the point - he was caught out and then petulantly fluffed it off when caught, like yah, it's not important.

[James Hellyer]

Dredge up old votes? Cameron has lied about his past policy positions. Period.

[hayek's grandad]

Hellyer -
"DC doesn't have ANY rule."

I'm certain most people here will know about DC's growth rule with respect to fiscal policy, which is what we were talking about. I'm sure you can find it in his literature if you browse through it. I also know you will be able to establish DD's fiscal policy if you search through his answers to the various questions during this leadership campaign.

Please let's avoid these personal attacks on the candidates and on each other. The only person they benefit is Gordon Brown. If we keep our eye on the ball (and I don't mean GB's sidekick) we can score. If we keep playing the man the British public will quite rightly give us a red card for the fourth time.

[Ed R]

Of course I would prefer consistency, but only consistency in the right direction. But (1) I believe Davis's consistency is in the wrong direction, and (2) I don't think there's any particular inconsistency from Cameron here anyway. He's staked his position on the issue, it's consistent with the way he voted on its final reading when there was no longer any room for negotiating the provisions in the bill. It's also consistent with his views on civil partnerships, Section 28 and so on.

[John Hustings]

"Please let's avoid these personal attacks on the candidates and on each other. "

What personal attacks?

[Barbara Villiers]

Sorry Gramps, that appeasement crap, that 'we're all in this together'fluff that Cameron spouts instead of policy cuts no ice with me.

He lied. Period. Stop making excuses for it.

[James Hellyer]

I'm certain most people here will know about DC's growth rule with respect to fiscal policy, which is what we were talking about. I'm sure you can find it in his literature if you browse through it. I also know you will be able to establish DD's fiscal policy if you search through his answers to the various questions during this leadership campaign.

Yes, we know his soundbite, but as was shown today by Robert Chote of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it's just that: a soundbite.

All you are offering is an apologia for shallowness and incoherence, in defence of whom we must assume is *your* candidate. That will damage the party.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I don't think you can hold old votes taken under party rules in the past against people especially against people who were junior members of the parliamentary party at the time."

So if he wasn't lying about his position on gay adoption, he was putting his career before his conscience. Which is it?

"If he backtracks on his statements during the last few weeks then fair enough skewer him."

I have done just that. It was Ed R who chose to bring up on this thread what I said about Cameron's disingenuity about gay adoption on another thread.

"Especially if you are a Labour supporter"

I edit a blog called Conservatives Against Cameron's NewLabourisation. Go figure.

"Please don't dredge up complex votes from the past to accuse a fellow conservative of being a liar just because you'd rather someone else led the party."

I'm sorry but I refuse to turn a blind eye to Cameron's flaws just because it looks like he will be the next leader. I'll call a spade a spade and somebody that deliberately avoids telling the truth is a liar.

[Barbara Villiers]

John,

Every time you disagree with a Cameroonie it is called a personal attack. My God, I wish just one would be a man and admit he behaved badly today instead of making feeble excuses.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I don't think there's any particular inconsistency from Cameron here anyway."

Cameron claims he's always been in favour of adoption rights for gay couples. He voted twice against granting adoption rights to gay couples. That is inconsistency whichever way you look at it.

"It's consistent with the way he voted on its final reading when there was no longer any room for negotiating the provisions in the bill."

When he abstained in the vote on adoption rights for unmarried couples you mean?

[hayek's grandad]

Hellyer -
He is not *my* candidate.

DVA -
I think loyalty to the party line is important. I'm sorry you disagree

Barbara -
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm begging people on both sides to stop posting "DC doesn't have any policies" and "DD is a dinosaur" posts (not to mention all the ones I've read saying "you are an idiot/you are naive/you are a liar" and that's just the ones directed at me).

[Jaz]

Grandad has a point, people do make mistakes, in the past and present and have the right to change their mind. It only adds to DC's charm and personality :)

Yes it shows Cameron can negotiate his thinking.
It might hint at some indecision but the new position itself is more center ground than before.

"DC doesn't have ANY rule." - I'd rather wait for the shadow chancellor to make new economic rules up, the idiocy of David Davis on his taxation promises by far outweighs Cameron's refusal to answer the question.

Would you trust David Davis to run the economy? I probably wouldn't..
Would you trust David Cameron to runt he economy? I wouldn't either.

But do I think DC has a better judgement on this issue than DD, yes!

I see that the DD crowd is saying "liar, liar"...Lying is part of the job, I'm quite impressed at how he handled the situation and the media is this respect

"Every time you disagree with a Cameroonie it is called a personal attack. My God, I wish just one would be a man and admit he behaved badly today instead of making feeble excuses."

There is a reason behind this - We believe he is already our leader, evidently this is a man who has inspired many young tories (like myself) to actually discuss issues. We do not believe that disgracing our leader (which even you have to admit is now inevitable) should be stabbed continously in the back.

David davis is a good guy, I hardly believe that an DC supporter would say otherwise, but the way in which DD supporters potray Cameron is entirely different..There are fairly petty argument against him and not enough for their own candidate.

Frankly the fundamental flaw with David Davis himself and his followers is that he's consistanly attacking others, but shows little reason for people to vote for him. I'm totally unconvinced about his agenda, and he shows not even a hint of reform to Tory policy. I have a feeling as do some other cameron supporters that DD will stab DC in the back once he becomes leader. I would prefer a united party...

That said..the length of this campaign with only 2 candidates results in a fairly hostile environment.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I think loyalty to the party line is important. I'm sorry you disagree."

I see you're going for the 'career before conscience' line then.

[hayek's grandad]

DVA -
I'm going for the achieving something rather than achieving nothing line, but thanks for the implication that I'm a shallow nasty person it makes me feel that all of this is worthwhile.

[John Hustings]

"I'm begging people on both sides to stop posting "DC doesn't have any policies" and "DD is a dinosaur" posts "

Isn't there a slight difference between those two criticisms? One is an ad hominem, the other is an argument over policy (or lack there-of).

[James Hellyer]

"He is not *my* candidate."

That would explain why you apologise for him and not Davis, oh yes!

[hayek's grandad]

John -
Both of them refer to a perception of a political stance. My point was that neither of them is true.

[Smiley]

"Grandad has a point, people do make mistakes, in the past and present and have the right to change their mind."

Which would be respected if they said "I changed my mind, because..."

But Cameron has lied.

[hayek's grandad]

Hellyer -
I apologise for Davis when it is necessary.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Thanks for the implication that I'm a shallow nasty person it makes me feel that all of this is worthwhile."

If you infer that from what I said, that's down to you, not me. My original reference to 'career before conscience' was as a possible explanation for Cameron voting against gay adoption rights when he claims he's always been in favour.

[James Hellyer]

I'd not noticed you defending Davis, Grandpa. Just Camreron. Though I suspect the "necessary" defence covers your preference.

[hayek's grandad]

DVA -
"If you infer that from what I said, that's down to you, not me."

Thanks for your concern.

James -
My preference was for the conservative party, at least until this evening.