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.
Advert

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 ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarAmalric 22nd Nov - 3:26am
    @ Tsar Nicolas and Peter Chegwyn How about a person who would have joined the Conservatives in the 1970s being a traditional Conservative supporter but...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 22nd Nov - 2:59am
    Stevan Rose Welcome to the Marxist branch of the Lib Dems. Look again at the words of the Land Song, Stevan Rose, I put them...
  • User AvatarAmalric 22nd Nov - 2:31am
    @ Colin Rosenstiel I had hoped that the reason Antony had withdrawn from the FE election was because he had been elected by the English...
  • User AvatarAmalric 22nd Nov - 2:20am
    Sorry “If they own an expensive house they should pay more tax than those who own a cheaper tax because their asset can fund that...
  • User AvatarAmalric 22nd Nov - 2:14am
    I think I agree with Steven Rose, in the sense that small businesses are good. In the 19th century Liberals supported business against the vested...
  • User AvatarColin Rosenstiel 22nd Nov - 1:25am
    The full results are now at www.rosenstiel.co.uk/ldelections. In answer to Jonathan Brown: 1 in 5 is one third (rounded down). Laura Gordon: the figures are...