Well, the new debates plan is even worse than the old one for the Liberal Democrats.
The original plan was that there would be a series of three debates involving Cameron and Miliband, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband and Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage.
This led to David Cameron showing more empathy to anything Green than he has had since he hugged that husky and refusing to take part if the Greens were excluded.
The new proposals create the worst of all possible worlds for the Liberal Democrats:
Broadcasters are expected to put forward new proposals for the TV election debates which would include the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
It comes after David Cameron refused to take part without the Green Party.
The BBC and ITV are expected to offer to stage seven-way debates including the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, SNP and Plaid.
Sky and Channel 4 will have a head to head between Cameron and Miliband.
Unsurprisingly, the Northern Irish parties with more MPs than the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru are also wanting a piece of the action.
I’ve said all along that the SNP and Greens at least should be included and I’m not opposed to anyone else who might make up a coalition being given a say. The electorate deserves to see what they would do if they were in government. In a 2 hour debate with up to a dozen participants, by the time you’ve taken out half an hour for opening and closing statements, it only leaves each participant with around 7 minutes of speaking time. It’ll be more like the Weakest Link than any coherent analysis of policy. What’s the betting that there’s a chorus of “We don’t agree with Nick” in mocking reprise to the 2010 debates?
This means that Nick Clegg will have approximately 18 minutes (over two debates) to defend a record of 5 years in government, while Cameron will have an hour more. That’s simply not fair to either the Liberal Democrats or the public.
Can you imagine how tortuous it is going to be to watch Cameron and Miliband debate on their own for 2 hours? For a clue, watch Prime Minister’s Questions. I can’t imagine either of them rising to the occasion. Cameron was very poor in 2010 and Miliband is really not suited to that kind of environment. Giving them the stage to themselves, though, allows them to set the agenda. Cameron will likely spend half the time passing off our policies as his own and the other half telling the country we’re an untamed bunch of hippies who are soft on Europe and terrorists. Miliband will be trying to equate us with the Tories and nobody will be there to make our case.
So, what can we do about it? The party needs to make the case to the broadcasters that natural justice is not served if a party of government is excluded. Sadly, we don’t have much in the way of leverage. We can’t opt out, else Nick will spend 3 months being followed by people dressed in chicken suits.
I am sure our clever campaigns people will think of a good way round Nick’s exclusion. I suspect, though, that this package, if agreed, gives a huge advantage to the old binary.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
52 Comments
I agree Caron, the time allotted to Nick Clegg is inadequate.
As for the time allotted for parties other thanTories and Labour, there will only be time for soundbites which will favour UKIP, no time for serious discussion and analysis.
I would like an hour long debate between the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Labour, because in my opinion, environmental concerns are not just an add on consideration when time and money allows, they are fundamental to every political policy.
I can’t believe people didn’t see what was going on and what was going to happen.
It is actually possible to be less negative and greet this new proposal as a ray of sunshine. 🙂
First, this is clearly more in tune with the principles of open and democratic debate. There is a clue in the two words that make up the name of our party that we are in favour of such things as open and democratic debate.
Second, let’s celebrate the fact that there will have only be 18 minutes for anyone to drone on about how wonderful it has been for our MPs to spend five years following orders from Cameron, Osborn and MI6.
Third, let’s get real and recognise that it is to ouparty’s advantage to have as title time s possible for someone to wag their finger at the public and remind them that the Coalition was the best time of their lives and as voters they should show some gratitude. Voters don’t do gratitude. People have made up their mind about the Coalition. 3% liked it and 30% thought it was OK because it kept Cameron in power and they are voting Conservative anyway: the other 67% either loathe it or are indifferent.
Fourth, we should relax because the public are not going to change their minds by watching Clegg doing what he did when he was in a TV debate with Farago last year, which was to lose and lose so badly that we lost every MEP except one.
Fifth, we should smile and remind ourselves that all the evidence of TV debates in both 2010 and 2014 is that the more the voters see and get to understand Nick Clegg, the less they vote Liberal Democrat.
This stinks but as Caron says we dont have much leverage. Personally I think its ridiculous to include Parties that most of us cant vote for, the debates should be resticted to Parties standing in at least three quarters of Westminster seats.
The new proposals are an absolute disgrace. The 7 way “debate” – if you can call it that – will be an airing of easy soundbites and will be so unwieldy and shouty that there will be absolutely no analysis, no cross-examination and frankly this will work enormously to the advantage of the two loony extreme parties UKIP and the Greens.
Only Cameron and Miliband will get any chance at cross-examination and all on their terms. They both want to portray the last 5 years – each for their different reasons – as a Tory government. This will give them yet another opportunity to hammer this home.
I wish the Lib Dems, Clegg in particular, would stop saying little more than ” natural justice is not served if a party of government is excluded”! We need to take a more principled stand and make a lot more noise than this. The basic principles of democracy and impartiality are at stake here.
What needs to be exposed is that the broadcasters and Ofcom have not presented to anyone a coherent, rational, fair and systematic set of criteria that they have attempted to apply to the question of the leaders’ TV debates or to the question of what constitutes a “major party”.
Fairness can only be achieved if those bodies can demonstrate that they have arrived at a decision based on a reproducible algorithm (whether that takes into accoun prior electoral success, current polls, or both). One that can be applied to this election and to all future elections regardless of the political landscape.
This boils down to simple maths. This isn’t rocket science.
Whether they have arrived at “sensible conclusion” as to who should be in the debates is actually far less important than demonstrating a coherent process of evaluation. They are currently making it up as they go along. Who knows what arbitrary rules they will apply in 2015?
Any system must be fair to the UK as a whole and to each of the four constituent nations. How can that be achieved? It’s absurd to have 7-way, 8-way, 9-way debates. If it true that it’s the only fair way if the SNP and PC were included, then it must follow that the DUP be included too. The DUP have more seats than SNP and PC. Fairness dictates that Northern Ireland not be neglected. Yet it must then follow that opponents of the DUP must have an equally fair opportunity. Sinn Fein has more MPs than Plaid Cymru and the SDLP have as many.
To follow that to its logical conclusion is simply absurd.
There is only one way I can see to resolve this if the UK continues to have various political parties that each stand in only one of the four nations. That is to have separate debates for each of the four nations, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and to use a system which determins which political parties should qualify solely on the basis of their record in the respective nation. Then to have another debate (or two) which are solely for national parties, and those parties would have to be parties which stand in more than one of the four nations,
This would mean that the parties that field candidates in Northern Ireland would have a debate amongst themselves, and in Scotland there would be a debate with Con, Lab, Lib Dem, SNP and possibly others (UKIP, Green) if they are deemed major parties in Scotland. Likewise for Wales.
In England it would most likely be the case that the English leaders’ debate would be the same as the UK-wide debate, featuring Con, Lab, Lib Dem plus UKIP, Green or other parties which are major parties in England.
However, logical dictates that, for example, if a party fielded candidates only in England, it should be excluded from the National debate because it is not truly a national party. If, for example, UKIP decided to field candidates only in England but not in Wales, Scotland or NI, it simply wouldn’t qualify even though it would still get a place in the TV debate solely for English parties.
There is an extent to which the four nations should be treated equally even though England is 85% of the UK and even though an English-only party could be very significant, I believe that now that we have increasing levels of devolution, there is a case for the argument that national politics should be for national parties, not parties with narrower issues.
In conclusion, we need the broadcasters and Ofcom to declare the decision-making process. The conclusions themselves are not enough. If they can’t describe a set of rules by which they are basing those decisions on then they are not being fair. It’s as simple as that.
I find it very difficult to stomach politicians arguing over who should or should not be in a debate, whilst not a single one of them could be bothered to get off their backsides and propose a coherent set of criteria for the process.
Broadcasters have still got themselves into a richly deserved mess. Probably end in Court. Judges might even know about Representation of the People Act. You cannot muddle through rules which are supposed to enshrine fairness.
And we have far too many quangos that think they understand elections.
Let’s be honest – the debates aren’t going to happen this year. The seven way debate will just end up being (to quote Arthur Montford) “a bit of a stramash”, and the ‘head-to-head’ a straightforward re-enactment of PMQs. The big debate will result in, effectively, people ganging up on each other – 5 (Labour, SNP, Plaid, UKIP, Greens) v 2 (Tories and Lib Dems) on the economy, 6 (Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid) v 1 (UKIP) on Europe, 5 (Labour, Lib Dems – I hope – Greens, SNP, Plaid) v 2 (Tories, UKIP) on immigration, 4 (Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, UKIP) v 3 (Plaid, SNP, Greens) on independence, etc. It will be a nightmare to control and chair, run for probably about three or four hours, and will bore the audience to tears.
I hope the debates don’t happen now. The last thing I want to spend two hours doing is seeing politicians only have enough time to repeat their Twitter soundbites.
Sinn Féin, DUP, SDLP, Alliance and Respect are all asking to join in now.
However, I would support the 7-way debates on the condition that UKIP’s Scottish MEP, David Coburn, is their representative. He just seems to open his mouth to try to push his foot in further every time he speaks!
As Liberal Democrats we should welcome the seven way debate; what we should be complaining about is the fact that the third debate isn’t a seven way debate also; after all didn’t someone once say we were here to bring down the two party system?
Given Clegg’s dire performances in the Farage debates, if I were a Lib Dem I’d be more unhappy about the fact that he’s in two of the debates than the fact that he’s excluded from the other one.
I just don’t see the point of these debates at all. Before 2010, we used to have programmes where each party leader would appear on their own and be questioned by members of the public. These programmes were vastly more illuminating than the yah-boo debates we’re fobbed off with now, and they were more of a challenge for the leaders. Remember Blair being tackled on GP waiting times? Thatcher on the Belgrano? That’s the kind of thing we should be going back to. Instead we’ll just have hours of who-has-the-best-insults. Spare us.
I wonder how a really large debate would work out. My wife was in the Czech Republic and watched a TV debate with all nine validly nominated presidential candidates. The moderator was struggling unsuccessfully to control it.
Ridiculous to have the SNP and Plaid included. The vast majority of the electorate will not have a chance to vote for these parties. The DUP and SF won more votes and seats than Plaid at the last election, the SDLP the same number of seats.
The DUP have more MPs than the SNP.
The inclusion of nationalist parties is a travesty.
iain 23rd Jan ’15 – 3:25pm
The logic of your comment is that only political parties that put up a full slate of candidates across the UK should be included. Unfortunately there is no such party.
Worse still from a Liberal Democrat perspective — it is not at all clear that we will have a full slate of candidates across England – unless you have more up to date information you can share on candidate selection ?
Only those who live in the constituency where he is a candidate will be able to vote for or against Nick Clegg.
I guess you are not suggesting it is a travesty that he will be involved in any TV Debate because the vast majority of people will not be able to vote for him?
Looks like the Lib Dems have an inflated view of themselves. Time for a reality check.
You have 1 MEP with 6.7% of the national vote less than a year ago. .
You are in 5th place on 7% average in recent polls.
You have lost 7 parliamentary deposits since 2010.
You do not desirve the same time as Ed Miliband.
Iain is right: including the SNP and Plaid has ruined the whole thing. There’s no democratic demand to see this, just legal threats ruining everything.
This has been a real mess, hasn’t it?
Maybe the best thing (for the broadcasters) to do would just have been to secure the 3 way debates again (as in 2010) and then arrange any number of extra debates around that. Still, it’s kind of heartening that we’ve been having so many arguments for the last two months about, essentially, the platform to air different policies. I hope debate is this lively when the actual manifestos come out… 🙂
Hi Dan
On the other hand, we have 57 MPs (the Greens have 1, UKIP have 2), we’re one of 2 parties actually in Government at Westminster, holding 5 cabinet seats, we have well over 2000 councillors and run several authorities, until recently we controlled several major cities.
Of the above, the government record is the clincher. We should have the opportunity to defend or be attacked on our government record. A 7-way “debate” – and I use the word debate in its loosest sense (more like shouting match with no opportunity for any modicum of cross-examination or analysis) – does not allow this.
Something like this?
“Can you imagine how tortuous it is going to be to watch Cameron and Miliband debate on their own for 2 hours? ”
This event will take place long after most postal votes will have been returned and will be viewed more by geeks than by voters?
Apart from agreeing that the less people see of Nick Clegg, the better, If there is a Labour/SNP/Green/DUP coalition in 2015 will all these people posting today will be insisting they must have the right to defend their record in Government in a TV debate ? Whereas the Liberal Democrats as a minor party be excluded ? Be careful what you wish for. Clegg has responded appallingly to the debate about debate and if you say like he did its up to the broadcasters it ill behoves you to complain about it. Was there no one telling Clegg he ought to support the Green being in the first debate (when the 4:3:2 format was proposed) thus heading of this problem ? I doubt it, anymore than anyone has the guts to tell him that the party would do better if he resigned as leader.
‘The logic of your comment is that only political parties that put up a full slate of candidates across the UK should be included. Unfortunately there is no such party.’
Personally, my criteria for the debates is that any party putting up, say, 90% of a full slate should be allowed to participate (this would allow for parties not standing in Northern Ireland, and for the odd special case such as Tatton in 1997 or Wyre Forest in 2001)
We will have a full slate, I am fairly certain. It seems that many candidates have been selected, but not necessarily publicised in the media, e.g. http://www.northwestlibdems.org.uk/2015-candidates/
Sadly, other regional parties have no such resource.
How likely is it that 2 ‘head to head’ debates happen between Cameron and Miliband? This will be the last thing that the Tories would want. Miliband, for whom expectations are low, can only gain at the expense of Cameron. I doubt even Channel 4 would stage a ‘head to head’ debate with an empty chair.
I agree it is unlikely Cameron will agree to a head-to-head with Miliband – but we must fight the proposed Tory-Labour debate nonetheless. And it’s not just about being given a chance to defend our record in Government.
Almost 300 seats in 2010 had Lib Dems in 1st or 2nd place. Even if UKIP or the SNP manage to push the Lib Dems back in some of these seats, they will in turn have opened up new fronts against the 2 largest parties. So the proposed Cameron-Miliband debate will be at best irrelevant in more than half of all British constituencies even excluding Northern Ireland.
Worse in these seats the two-party debate will favour the Tory or Labour candidate and disadvantage their principal opponent who in most cases will be the Liberal Democrats. For example:
In my constituency in Surrey, the Lib Dems came 2nd with 29% in 2010, Labour got just 7%. Labour came 5th here in the European elections last year. Labour have NO councillors in the constituency, compared with 26 for the Tories and 17 for the Lib Dems (and 1 for UKIP) – all elected in 2011 or later. In the most recent local by-election in September 2014 (which we won from the Tories with a 47% swing), Labour won just 4% (down 11% from the previous local elections in 2011).
But the proposed Cbannel 4/Sky News debate will allow the Tories to rebuild their own splintering vote here and undermine the Liberal Democrats as their main challengers by presenting the general election (and the simultaneous local elections) as a false choice between themselves and Labour.
Furthermore, it is far from clear that the leader of the largest party will necessarily be the next Prime Minister – particularly if there is a coalition government. Lloyd George led a coalition with a larger group of Tories in the 1920s, and so did Ramsay McDonald in the 1930s.
Paul Kennedy: Are you suggesting that the next Prime Minister might be someone other than Mr Miliband or Mr Cameron? If so, whom did you have in mind?
“that natural justice is not served if a party of government is excluded”
The party is not being excluded – it’s only receiving some 20% of the time available to the whole coalition. Frankly, that’s probably generous . If the Lib Dems are reluctant to take ownership of even 20% of what the coalition government has done the party can hardly quibble at not receiving more time to defend the government’s acts.
A fair arrangement would be one 7-way debate, one 4-way debate (Con/Lab/LD/UKIP), and one 2-way debate.
Glenn Andrews wrote “As Liberal Democrats we should welcome the seven way debate; ”
I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense from a Lib Dem perspective, which is one which believes in devolution, federalism, localism, fair representation and more. It is an absurdity to have a national debate featuring leaders of two parties who cannot be elected by at least 85% of the electorate, namely the SNP and PC. In the same way that Party Election Broadcasts are determined separately for the four nations of the UK as well for the country as a whole, the debates clearly should be treated likewise.
To roll over and say that a national 7-way debate is a good idea is to betray those principles of fairness, devolution and federalism. We should be loudly trumpeting the opinion that it is a nonsensical proposal and one that should be replaced with a number of debates individual to each of the four nations, plus further debates at a wholly national level only for those parties which are truly national in basis.
Please can this party have some consistency in applying its principles not just to policy matters but also to details such as this TV debate debacle?
I hear Cameron and Miliband, and sometimes Clegg, screaming at each other – or making carefully scripted unfunny jokes every week at PMQs. I see Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats on TV every week, and hear them on the radio. Quite often Farage pops up as well. For the past year this has seemed like an election fight – and, despite being committed to political activity and interested in the subject, I already find it so tedious that I tend to switch off. When I thought the debates were going to be Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage and no-one else, I decided I’d have to find something else to do that evening. The 7-way debates might actually attract some viewers. Strange as it may seem, most of the public – including many political activists – are bored rigid with the kind of debates currently being conducted and the restating of carefully rehearsed positions. (For the record, I’m the kind of political junkie who even watches French presidential debates and election programmes, despite relatively poor French and no vote. If I’m turned off by British mainstream political debates, things have got really bad.)
@David Allen:
“A fair arrangement would be one 7-way debate, one 4-way debate (Con/Lab/LD/UKIP), and one 2-way debate.”
Perhaps a fairer way would be to have a ‘Strictly Come Debating” format and let the audience phone/email vote on the quality of performance in each debate with the lowest two being excluded from the next round?
I’m all for the SNP, the Greens and Plaid joining the debate. Should be fun seeing three women leaders take on Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage!
However, I am not keen on a head-head between Cameron and Miliband. Clegg should be there not that I think it will do the party any good but because we’re not in a presidential system .
Helen
I am not a great fan of debates but remember it was the Tories and Lib Dems supported by the Tory press who bullied Brown into it in 2010 and I don’t remember the LD complaining at the time, especially after the 1st debate!
Cameron doesn’t want to do them because he is actually not very intelligent and would probably get shown up for how shallow he is as a debater….Miliband, for all his faults, has a better grasp of policy and is more intelligent. He also has nothing to lose.
Cameron is a bully and, like all bullies, is a coward at heart!
I would love to see a three-header and see which way Clegg would go…..I am pretty sure he would support Cameron against Miliband. I think it is for the best that he is not involved as he would be left in a very difficult positioned would not be able to avoid the ‘who would you prefer to be in coalition with?’
A lot of people here seem to favour a “three-header”, but I don’t see how that could possibly be fair – two from the government vs one from the opposition.
I don’t think Labour should take comfort from greater exposure for miliband!
Obviously the answer IS to respect the devolved jurisdictions and therefore to have 4 debates involving the leaders
of the parties with at least one MP in each.
And so that’s exactly what won’t happen.
@Caron Lindsay
“I am sure our clever campaigns people will think of a good way round Nick’s exclusion.”
Really? A commendable display of loyalty, Caron, but I wouldn’t count on it. Your previous paragraph is much nearer the mark……and the person responsible for this affront to “natural justice” is of course David Cameron.
Are the LibDems going to let him run rings around them as happened in the AV referendum?
My personal feeling is that the multi party debates are a good thing – if other countries can manage it then so can we.
However, I do tend to think that either you should go for all regional parties or none of them – the nationalists/DUP/SDLP/etc. don’t stand across the UK and so they logically shouldn’t be in the UK debates. Or, if one of them is included then logically they all should be.
As for the Cameron-Miliband debate, it won’t happen. Cameron will continue to insist that it’s not fair unless the other parties are included in that one and Miliband will insist it has to be head to head. And since that one is being organised separately by Channel 4 while the other two are a BBC/ITV joint plan then we’ll probably only get the multi-party debates.
A “3 headed” debate would be even more disastrous for the Lib Dems. It could even drive more key members and supporters away just as the election is about to happen. What we would be forced to do (and Nick Clegg would not want to avoid anyway) is to defend the Lib Dem economic record. Clegg is in any case a weak debater, and defending a case which most people with any possible likelihood of voting LD are opposed to would be a vote loser.
@David-1
“Paul Kennedy: Are you suggesting that the next Prime Minister might be someone other than Mr Miliband or Mr Cameron? If so, whom did you have in mind?”
UKIP despise Cameron so a Tory/UKIP coalition might settle on a ecoeurosceptic PM willing to back an early exit such as Hammond, Gove or Paterson. Or even Boris or David Davies
A lot of Labour members might prefer a different Mr/ Lord Miliband or perhaps Alan Johnson as part of a deal with us or the SNP – or even Charles Kennedy or Caroline Lucas leading a rainbow coalition
So what has been the impact of the Debate about the Debates ?
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
Lord Ashcroft National Poll: Con 29%, Lab 28%, UKIP 15%, Green 11%, Lib Dem 9%
No doubt paul barker will now make a comment to say that this does not matter because Liberal Democrat voters only wake up five minutes before a General Election. The fixed term parliament act put us all to sleep like Snow White only to wake up if we are kissed by Prince Andrew .
The danger in saying – ” SNP and PC should not be in Debates because they will not have candidates everywhere” —
PROSPECTIVE PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE SELECTIONS FOR 2015 GENERAL ELECTION.
As of 20th January 2015
Source @AndyJSajs
609 LABOUR
550 CONSERVATIVE
430 UKIP
339 THE GREEN PARTY
332 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
If these figures are accurate does it show that the people at top of our party know what they are doing?
Or does it show a shameful failure?
How many SpAds does NC need to tell him that to look credible as a national party you need candidates.
We are now effectively frozen out of the debates. Part of me thinks that this is a good thing because it minimises airtime for the leader. The last 7-way debate I recall seeing was during the Republican primaries in November 2011. My recollection is that it wasn’t the quality of the arguments that mattered because nuanced argument was impossible when so many people had to speak. The key was for the candidates to not sweat and to avoid inserting foot in mouth.
@johntilley: Candidate selectio has nothing to do with Nick Clegg or his SpAds. If you want to blame anyone, then the English Party is the appropriate target. They procrastinated for months, despite many people on the FE coming up with evidence that things were not gong as well as they thought. It’s back on track now and it will be sorted but there was a valid concern for a while.
Caron,
Who should we blame for the shambles in the Welsh party? I doubt if even half of the parliamentary candidates have been selected here.
Caron
Sorry if I was mistaken — but I am sure that I have read in LDV that Mr Coetzee reports directly to Mr Clegg on the General Election preparations. Has that changed?
Mr Coetzee was a SpAd but is no longer admittedly although he seems to be doing exactly the same job he did when he was a SpAd.
Only recently you told us here in LDV that a recently appointed SpAd has the job of “Building Brand Clegg”.
Is that nothing to do with the General Election?
Perhaps it would be in the public interest to have a clear statement of what Nick Clegg’s £8 million pound brigade of SpAds actually do and where the dividing line lies between advising a minister and working for a political party?
Frankly the less time time Cleggie is on the box the better for us. Its a bit like Blair, do not mention him in 2005 etc.
Well, if we in the Lib Dems have 332 candidates selected, I would be interested to know why the party’s central website is so under-reported. I checked about 3 days ago, and it was still a little under 200. Just checked again – still on 188! According to AJS’s figures, that is only about 60% of the total?! What is going on? Are we that inefficient?
Do the candidate numbers mentioned by John Tilley and Tim13 allude only to England, or are they federal figures?
We believe in proportional representation and the general principle has to be that all parties are treated fairly. It is hard to be 100% fair, but this has to be the best solution in this regard.
It is not necessarily to the disadvantage to the Liberal Democrats. The electorate are not listening to Nick Clegg so it doesn’t matter how much time he gets.
The only hope for the Liberal Democrats is the personal reputation of the MPs and the resources available to the local parties where we can win. The national debates will not help as in any way so we should concentrate on local campaigns instead.
On the lack of Liberal Democrat candidates for that little local event on 7th May, we should all say thank you to Anders Hanson for this update on candidate selection.
His word is “rubbish” but he goes on to say that it will be sorted.
“…..Candidate selections have moved on slightly since the last meeting, and although there is still a long way to go, all regions have now started the process of circumventing the full selection process for any that have yet to start their selection. I accept that the numbers selected are still rubbish, although as I have said before, we aren’t that far off where we were at this point in the last parliament, getting people to commit far out from the election to standing in a seat where we aren’t in close contention to win is always hard, and we will have a full slate come polling day. I would expect by the time I write my next report every seat will be selected.”
We all have to hope that they are not working to a timetable set by Chilcot.
https://andershanson.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/preview-of-english-lib-dem-executive-24th-jan-2015/
Tsar Nicolas
The figures I quoted were for England, Scotland and Wales.
When these debates are on I think I do something useful like take the dog for a walk or mow the lawn