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

[Samuel Coates]

"Samuel,

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

Posted by: Barbara Villiers"

I'm sorry you think I was insulting your intelligence by merely pointing out that over the series of hustings the two candidates have been using many of eachothers phrases and quips, and don't see how your sitting at the front at the latest hustings is relevant.

With respect, lets keep the tone here constructive.

[Guido Fawkes]

Babs V - she is some girl 'eh?

James Brown is a traditional Labour voter - the fact that he could consider voting Cameron is great for the Tories.

BV might detest him, but this is Britain as it is today, not as you might imagine or want it to be.

[Rick]

this is Britain as it is today, not as you might imagine or want it to be.

No but some people still wish it could be better. What was it Oscar Wilde said about all of us being in the gutter, but some of us looking at the stars !

[Barbara Villiers]

What, Guido? Venal, superficial, selfish and amoral? I am passionate about politics because perhaps I am naive enough to think it makes a difference to people's lives.

My generation did it with Vietnam. We made a difference and we forced a Government to do the right thing. I am proud to have taken an active part in ithaving spent the first part of my life in the States. We got rid of a corrupt president in Nixon. And then Jaz says 'lying is part of the job'. How utterly cynical and how badly that bodes for his generation and our country.

David Davis summed it up for me when the spoke of a 'new Tory idealism' - that is what made me a supporter.

Members of this Party now want to put in another liar - because that is what he is - a liar and I defy any Cameron supporter to deny it.

[Barbara Villiers]

Oh, and by the way, before you accuse me of being an old fogey, I just ran Jaz' line about 'lying being part of the job' by my 18 year old son who was frankly disgusted by the concept.He said that if that was what politics was about no wonder kids like him were disillusioned. And he's no Tory boy.

P.S. And Jaz, before you become dismissive about dinosaurs let me tell you that I'm a member of the Groucho and therefore a witness to many of James Brown's more louche episodes - so much for my being a 'shires matron'

[Rick]

P.S. And Jaz, before you become dismissive about dinosaurs let me tell you............ so much for my being a 'shires matron'

Is that what they're accusing you of Duchess ? Terrible. These gophers for ad-men have no respect.

[Oberon Houston]

Who is Babs? The mystery Continues. Is it Sams Mum?

[Midnight Blue]

The viciousness and tone of some people on here is quite hideous, you'd never guess that we all supported the same party. Whichever candidate you prefer, being offensive and slinging insults and abuse doesn't make you look good, some people should really think about what they post before they post it

[Barbara Villiers]

So Midnight Blue, since when is telling the truth vicious - Cameron LIED about the way he voted. That is the vicious action - not our dismay about it.

If you think that for a minute I am going to condone that and gloss over it for the sake of winning then you are mistaken. No Party is worth compromising my principles.

[Peter]

I listen to people who say we got to wait for the markets before cutting taxes, I can just see Margaret doing that in 79 when she cut out the 83% band of income tax.
Grow up Davis has a plan, Cameron doesn't(at least at this moment) even supporters of Cameron who aren't on his team say this. With this the question for people thinking of voting for Cameron is do you really want to give him a blank cheque? most people who have views in the end say no.

But in '79, the narrative was about economic reform, today it is about quality of life.

Conservatives, need to create stronger communities, that should be the basis for our narrative of 2005.

[Oberon Houston]

Most economists disagree with the Davis plan.

Barbara – I find your slightly hysterical language tiring. Do you work at Millbank?

[malcolm]

I agree with you Midnight Blue.A very depressing thread (again).

[Peter]

A list of names please Oberon or was that just a wishfull statement by you?

[Peter]

If you don't think a 83% tax band has a effect on someones' quality of life than no wonder you keeping quiet on who you are?

[Jules]

Most economists disagreed with Mrs T too

[Oberon Houston]

Names? For BV?

[Barbara Villiers]

And I find your blind obeisance equally annoying - are you sure that YOU don't work at Millbank?

[Peter]

Jules maybe so but she not only won three terms but she also changed the Labour party from a demand side party to a supply side one.
Oberon I meant economists that back your statement?

[Barbara Villiers]

Peter,

You'll have to forgive the Cameroonies - they are absolutely cock-a-hoop at the endorsements by the Sun (snigger, snigger) and the Telegraph who used to inform Tory opinion but now are mere camp followers.

[Rick]

No Party is worth compromising my principles.

Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 25 November 2005 at 09:49

You are correct in this !

[howard stevenson]

Editor,

Another thread decends into benality, personnal insults and away from constructive criticism of either candidate.

It is worth pointing out that it is the same people again. When will they learn?

[Jules]

Peter - yes THATS my point - they disagreed - and she won three elections - so who was right?

[Peter]

I'm hoping Barbara(for their sake) that most of them get past page three. Its a bad day when you can win on style alone these days, no wonder I'm more interested in Russian and Central European polics at times.

[Midnight Blue]

Barbara:

I didn't say that telling the truth was vicious, I said and still believe that conducting a debate with the strident and aggressive style you use, doesn't make you or anybody else on this site look good. Your description of creeps and gobshites earlier on this thread is just one example.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your principles, but the way you (and others) lay into people in such a nasty way, doesn't do us any favours at all