Lib Dem response to Labour’s letter to broadcasters

Nick Robinson has reported:

I’m told that Labour has asked the two other big parties to sign a joint letter to broadcasters criticising them for covering the debates and the polls too much and claiming that the news bulletins had “failed to deliver the usual specialist examination of specific policy areas”. The Lib Dems and the Tories have refused to sign. The BBC has yet to receive the letter.

Here’s the party’s official response to the request from Labour:

We have discussed your proposal, however, we do not think that it is appropriate for political parties to seek to dictate the nature of political coverage to broadcasters. We are pleased that because we have set out our policy priorities clearly in our manifesto and included detailed costings, broadcasters and others have been able to analyse our policy and subject it to proper scrutiny and discussion. It might assist coverage if other parties followed suit. We would of course welcome further focus on policy given our clear message, focused priorities and detailed costings.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/19132 for Twitter and emails.

4 Comments

  • Andrew Suffield 25th Apr '10 - 7:51pm

    So basically Labour are unhappy because their debate and poll performance is bad, and they would prefer the media to concentrate on some unspecified area in which they are strong.

    I wonder what area they think that is.

  • oh snap!

    (the above comment is deemed too short by LDV so I have added this comment below).

  • Stewart Kirk 26th Apr '10 - 11:48pm

    Whatever you may think it would surely be better for our democracy for elections to be fought on policy rather than personaility. However, I fear the dumbing down of our public life sinply relects the superficial celebrity culture that pervades all aspects of modern Britain, so, perhaps, Labour were pushing water uphill hoping for anything better from the other parties.

    I recall rarely agreeing with you at York University in 1988, Mark, and still find we have diverging views. Thought you looked good on the box today though.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarT-J 2nd Sep - 1:04am
    It is about risk. But, we are in 2014, not 2008. Earlier this year, the mere suggestion that the European Central Bank was willing to...
  • User AvatarT-J 2nd Sep - 1:02am
    LJP, the Scottish Government can't bring about the ' 'change' ' I'm talking about, because it lacks the powers. It cannot reform the British constitution...
  • User AvatarIan MacFadyen 2nd Sep - 12:50am
    My condolences to Simon's family and friends. For a time we lived on the same street in Forest Gate and I enjoyed our conversations when...
  • User AvatarJoe Bourke 2nd Sep - 12:31am
    John Dunn, I would regard broad general statements without any credible support to be the exaggerations and embellishments typical of Russian propaganda e.g. " Washinnton...
  • User AvatarPsi 2nd Sep - 12:14am
    Jayne Mansfield "I agree that scapegoating individuals is not the answer " That is not what any one is proposing. It is holding people accountable...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 2nd Sep - 12:10am
    Hmm, I suppose creditors should price in the fact that people might just walk away from their debt, but when corporate banks seem to be...