The words that suggest Gordon Brown will not debate with other leaders
This morning the PM announced that he was officially agreeing to a series of televised debates in the run up to the General Election.
That’s great, if that’s what he is actually saying but if he isn’t then just what is he getting out of this?
BBC’s Nick Robinson has already stated that the reason the PM is up for this is that the Labour Party is so strapped for cash that this is seen as a no publicity is bad publicity move.
This morning over on LabourLost.org I blogged about the possible breach of the DPA within the open letter and the way in which it appears to be missing something at the end.
Whilst the full text can be viewed here, my point in this blog post are the following paragraphs and I shall attempt to elaborate
It is right that we set the issues before the British people. Others can work out the details but what’s important for the country is that there is a wide ranging series of television and radio debates with party leaders that are also able to devote attention to the central issues that matter to families: the economy, public services, how we strengthen our communities, and how we work with the rest of the world.
It is right that there will be a strong focus on the leaders’ debates and it is right that in a Cabinet system of government that ministers and opposition ministers also debate the issues in a series of debates on television and radio too.
I relish the opportunity of making our case directly to the people of this country.
The first line worries me in relation to my LabourLost blog post with the truncated sentence (mentioned above) [It is right that we set the issues before the British people].
When Brown uses the word ‘before’ are we to take this as meaning ‘in front of’ or ‘prior to’? If ‘prior to’ then why ask for questions to be submitted? If ‘in front of’ then why not complete the very last sentence of the page which currently leads to suspicion that any submitted suggestion would be subject to editing. Currently this final sentence reads as: [The Labour Party and its elected representatives may use the data you have supplied] there is no punctuation or further wording at this point.
The next set of carefully chosen words are [a wide ranging series of television and radio debates with party leaders] no matter how you read that you’re wrong.
This statement in no way, shape or form implies or infers that the PM has any intention himself of participating in a televised debate with other mainstream Party leaders present at the same time.
The following words [It is right that there will be a strong focus on the leaders’ debates] lead people to automatically conclude that the PM is referring to the 3 debates that have been touted, when in fact this wording could be taken to mean one debate per leader to a specific audience.
Finally, the wording that to me sums up that the PM will not participate with either David Cameron or Nick Clegg is [I relish the opportunity of making our case directly to the people of this country], as previously mentioned this seems to backup my view that the PM is angling towards 1 leader 1 debate to a specific audience. Whilst initially it may seem that the PM is opening up to the public and other leaders he is not.
If the PM truly intended to debate with other leaders present this final sentence would read something akin to [I relish the opportunity of making the Labour Party's case directly to the people of this country and in front of the leaders of the opposition Parties.]
How I wish to be proved wrong but after the previous debates over how long a manifesto promise should stand I have a problem with believing anything that comes out of Downing St.
Tags: #GoBro, Conservatives, Labour, LibDem, TV Debate
Posted on October 3rd, 2009 at 16:06
I agree; the wording is suspect. Very suspect.
It is just another Brown cock-up in the making, though. If he now turns round and says “I never agreed to this and won’t do it”, he will be roasted alive for either reneging or weaseling.
Posted on October 10th, 2009 at 20:39
He’s as slippery as an eel. I agree with you. His words are very oblique as usual.
He’ll either bottle and carry on as PM, or find an excuse to give up office.
Posted on January 13th, 2010 at 21:10
[...] This all smacks of a smokescreen to me and one that I may be on my own supporting but hey ho, that’s what it’s like sometimes. You have to go with your gut feeling. Much the same as I did with the TV debates that I still feel will fail to materialise. [...]