David Cameron will refuse TV debates if Greens excluded

[Zaune]

BBC News

Prime Minister David Cameron has said he will not take part in TV debates ahead of the general election unless the Green Party is also included.

Mr Cameron told BBC North West Tonight it was a question of fairness.

He said he did not see how "some minor parties like the Liberal Democrats and UKIP" could take part in the leaders' debates, but not the Greens.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has said the PM "owes it to the people" to take part.

The current proposals for the TV election debates only include the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP.

The suggested schedule is for debates on 2 April, 16 April and 30 April, ahead of the election on 7 May.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the PM had told his allies he would be happy to see no debates at all during the election campaign itself.

Farage included

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has been invited to take part in one of the debates.

Another features the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem leaders, and a third would just involve Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband.

Mr Cameron said he would like the debates to take place "but you can't have some minor parties in and not other parties in".

He went on: "The Greens have a member of parliament, they beat the Liberal Democrats in the last national election - the European Elections, so I don't see how you can have UKIP and not the Greens. That is my very strong opinion."

He also suggested that if the debates do take place they should be held before the official general election campaign begins.

The BBC's Nick Robinson said the PM's private view was "if we, the Conservatives, are to get hurt by the people to our right, UKIP, then Labour and the Liberal Democrats should get hurt by people to their left, the Green Party".
Natalie Bennett (stock photo) Green Party leader Natalie Bennett gave Mr Cameron's comments a cautious welcome

UKIP leader Nigel Farage said the PM was "running scared", and called him a "chicken" on Twitter.

Mr Farage claimed Mr Cameron was using the Greens "as an excuse" not to have a debate with UKIP, and said the debates should go ahead without him.

Mr Miliband said Mr Cameron was "chickening out" and "trying to find any excuse to stop these debates happening", saying he should "stand on his record".

But Mr Cameron rejected the claim in his interview with the BBC, pointing out that he took part in the TV leaders' debates in the run up to the 2010 election.

Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said Mr Cameron should "stop ducking and weaving" and commit to taking part. He said the public expected the debates to take place.
'Deeply disappointed'

It comes after Ofcom said the Green Party had not demonstrated significant support in previous general elections to be considered a "major party" ahead of May's election.

The party said it was "deeply disappointed" at the regulator's stance.

Alongside the SNP and Plaid Cymru, the Greens have been calling for inclusion in the debates.

Asked by ITV News whether he would not take part unless the Greens were involved, Mr Cameron said: "Correct. I don't think the current proposal will work.

"You can't have one minor party without having another minor party. And I think that's only logical and fair."

When they unveiled their proposals for the debates, the BBC, Sky, ITV and Channel 4 said they reflected "changes in the political landscape" since the three prime ministerial debates during the 2010 general election.

Each of those debates featured Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg and Labour's Gordon Brown.

The broadcasters say they "remain committed" to providing televised election debates and will "continue to work" with all the parties to ensure they happen in 2015.

Well, good for him, even if there is an element of self-interest at work; the Greens are arguably doing to Labour what Farrage's Blackshorts* are doing to the Tories, so not having the Greens in the room would give Labour an unfair advantage.

* That's a literary allusion, not a typo.

[Grumman]

Hopefully that does go ahead. It would be much better than the situation in the US, where the Democrats and the Republicans conspired together to exclude the third parties from the debates.

[madd0ct0r]

let the votequake continue!

[jwl]

Well, good for him, even if there is an element of self-interest at work; the Greens are arguably doing to Labour what Farrage's Blackshorts* are doing to the Tories, so not having the Greens in the room would give Labour an unfair advantage.

* That's a literary allusion, not a typo.

I would say that it's self interest, but I wouldn't say it is necessarily for the reason you outlined. If the Greens are in the SNP will want in too (rightly you could say, because they have far more seats than the greens could hope to get, and the green party of england and wales are regional too). The low chances of SNP actually getting a place in the debate means that the whole debate could be called off, which could be a a bonus for Cameron after the disaster last time. Furthermore, if SNP do get into the debate, they are much more likely to do damage to Labour than the Greens are.

[madd0ct0r]

yes, but if a person who would normally vote for party A is confident that party B's vote has been split, they feel they can safely vote for Party U without the risk of ending up with Party B (who they hate) in power under first pass the post.

It's a less stable equilibrium then voting only for the two main parties out of fear the other getting in, but it's still a possible stability point, espcially given that very few people want to vote for either A or B anymore.

[Vendetta]

I would say that it's self interest, but I wouldn't say it is necessarily for the reason you outlined. If the Greens are in the SNP will want in too (rightly you could say, because they have far more seats than the greens could hope to get, and the green party of england and wales are regional too). The low chances of SNP actually getting a place in the debate means that the whole debate could be called off, which could be a a bonus for Cameron after the disaster last time. Furthermore, if SNP do get into the debate, they are much more likely to do damage to Labour than the Greens are.

More likely Scotland will have its own televised debate which will basically be SNP/Labour. (If the last polls are reflective of the general election then Labour and Lib Dems get fucked sideways and the SNP become the third party in Westminster).

[jwl]

Anyway, I found this: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-30-march.

Looks like a green-including debate could be on the cards. They could first have an online debate with five parties, then televised have four, three, two as the election gets closer. It would be hard for parties to get their way out of that.

[Irbis]

This is the same Call Me Dave who decided to totally ignore SNP last year until that tactic almost didn't backfire spectacularly. Can you say dishonest, flippant weasel?

Anyway, his call maybe would have been sincere with proportional voting, but it's pretty transparent with first past the post system. I like how he pees all over naive idiots who let him come into power, though. 'Small' party? It wasn't so small when you needed coalition, eh, Dave?

[Vendetta]

It's p. clear that this is really about the kippers. I'm sure if there was a debate with just the usual three parties he'd be there, it's just having to share a stage with Farage, and knowing that he'd essentially have to one up him no matter how crazy he talks to stop him swaying the Tory base.

But with five parties there would be less time for the smell of kipper to spread.

[jwl]

This is the same Call Me Dave who decided to totally ignore SNP last year until that tactic almost didn't backfire spectacularly. Can you say dishonest, flippant weasel?

Anyway, his call maybe would have been sincere with proportional voting, but it's pretty transparent with first past the post system. I like how he pees all over naive idiots who let him come into power, though. 'Small' party? It wasn't so small when you needed coalition, eh, Dave?

The lib dem vote has been demolished since then though. They'll be lucky to get half the number of seats they got last time, and it's entirely possible that nick clegg might lose his seat. And bear in mind that had the lib dems decided to side with labour, they would still have needed SNP plus one other party (which may have been the greens, or any other party with at least one MP) to make a majority government. Should the other parties in that potential grouping have been part of the election broadcasts too?

Having said that, IMO after next election the government will still include the lib dems, just in smaller numbers, and it may include a third party too.

[Irbis]

The lib dem vote has been demolished since then though. They'll be lucky to get half the number of seats they got last time, and it's entirely possible that nick clegg might lose his seat.

Wasn't big part of the demolishment precisely the fact they went against their electorate and signed on a number of massively unpopular right wing policies? Same happened here, with LPR and SO acting as smaller partner to PiS right wingers only to lose all support and be devoured.

And bear in mind that had the lib dems decided to side with labour, they would still have needed SNP plus one other party (which may have been the greens, or any other party with at least one MP) to make a majority government.

Well, maybe, but wouldn't coalition of LD, Labour, and Welsh/Scottish/Irish left wing parties (all of which have MP) be much more cohesive and agreeable than current coalition? Leading to lesser popularity loss and less disagreements?

Also, frankly, the situation where you can win 1/4 of popular support but then get 1/12 of seats in parliament necessitating welding of the above coalition with multiple tiny parties isn't particularly healthy, IMHO. The fact LD was needed by everyone to form coalition could have been used as a bargaining chip to change just that. Their leadership total failure to do so means their 'destruction' is entirely their fault.

[Crazedwraith]

Also, frankly, the situation where you can win 1/4 of popular support but then get 1/12 of seats in parliament necessitating welding of the above coalition with multiple tiny parties isn't particularly healthy, IMHO. The fact LD was needed by everyone to form coalition could have been used as a bargaining chip to change just that. Their leadership total failure to do so means their 'destruction' is entirely their fault.

They tried. Remember the Alternate Vote referendum?

The LD's were in a bad position where every U turn they had to make to be in the coalition was very bad for their image but any moderation of the Tories they managed to do pretty much goes unnoticed. Since we don't know how a Tory majority government would have turned out.

Someone, years ago probably, posted a link to a website that was actually tracking the good the Lib Dems had done in coalition....

[jwl]

The lib dem vote has been demolished since then though. They'll be lucky to get half the number of seats they got last time, and it's entirely possible that nick clegg might lose his seat.

Wasn't big part of the demolishment precisely the fact they went against their electorate and signed on a number of massively unpopular right wing policies? Same happened here, with LPR and SO acting as smaller partner to PiS right wingers only to lose all support and be devoured.

Partially. Another reason was that becoming part of the government lost them the protest vote.

And bear in mind that had the lib dems decided to side with labour, they would still have needed SNP plus one other party (which may have been the greens, or any other party with at least one MP) to make a majority government.

Well, maybe, but wouldn't coalition of LD, Labour, and Welsh/Scottish/Irish left wing parties (all of which have MP) be much more cohesive and agreeable than current coalition? Leading to lesser popularity loss and less disagreements?

Lesser popularity loss? Maybe, maybe not. Lesser disagreements? I don't think so.

Getting any republican party without having a unionist one or via versa would be an immensely bad idea, it could set off tensions in Northern Ireland again. There's a reason why the mainstream parties don't stand there. And if you included both (which would have to be Alliance and SDLP, since the DUP is right wing and sinn fein don't vote in the house of commons) there would be large disagreement, not to mention the fact that one of them might refuse to sign up.

SNP would have to be included if the lib dems were to form a majority government with labour and without the DUP (northern ireland, right wing), but that would annoy the english so the lib dems would be forced to clash with SNP to keep their english support base.

They would then still need one more seat to form a majority government. Since the one independent candidate is an ex-UUP member (which would be unsuitable because Northern Ireland), they only have two options: green or plaid cymru (unless they go for both).

Furthermore, Labour by itself has its own internal problems. Gordon Brown may still have had to resign as a lib dem condition of government, and that would leave the country with a provisional prime minister in the time it takes them to elect an new leader. The fact that they would have three or four different other parties trying to push policy in their own directions means fractures are even more likely than under normal circumstances.

And while the lib dems are ideologically closer to labour as a whole, I was given the indication that nick clegg is further to the right and highly dislikes the labour party. They would also have to work with the green party and/or plaid cymru, who are left of labour and therefore would be more economically detached from the lib dems.

After all that, you have a maximum of a four-seat majority. That means that if a good amount of backbenchers rebel or abstain on any given bill (and they will), it is theoretically possible that the bill will get blocked by the other parties, which would cause a lot of disagreements, especially if most of the rebellion stemmed from one party.

But anyway, my point is that being part of a coalition doesn't necessarily mean that you are not a small party because under that logic under a different set of circumstances you wouldn't consider SNP, greens, or plaid cymru small parties, either.

Also, frankly, the situation where you can win 1/4 of popular support but then get 1/12 of seats in parliament necessitating welding of the above coalition with multiple tiny parties isn't particularly healthy, IMHO. The fact LD was needed by everyone to form coalition could have been used as a bargaining chip to change just that.

It was used as a bargaining chip to get the AV referendum (which means that a "wasted vote" wouldn't stop a lib dem candidate getting in, it probably would have benefited the lib dems). They lost that referendum pretty badly, and the referendum IMO was one of the reasons for the lib-dem's decline: it looks like they are more interested in boosting their own seat number than addressing the issues the country faces. Labour also supported the yes side, but it was still mainly regarded as a "lib dem thing", and one of the main reasons why some people supported the lib dems in the first place was the perception that they were above this. And remember that every lib dem voter in a lib dem seat benefited from first past the post, because they got the candidate they voted for.

[jwl]

Election 2015: Broadcasters expected to offer new TV debates plan

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's plan to host a head-to-head between Mr Cameron and Ed Miliband would remain unchanged.

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said there was "no sign" anything had been agreed so far, but he understood there were proposals for two debates including the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the Greens.

The format for the debates has not yet been agreed, he added.

'Good for democracy'
The move comes after a political row over the proposed format for the debates to be held during the election campaign.

The initial proposals only included the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP.

The broadcasters said they "remain committed" to providing election debates during the general election campaign.

"The debates played an important role in informing millions of our viewers in 2010 and we will continue to work with all the parties to ensure that they happen again in 2015," they said in a joint statement.

Reacting to the news, Green Party in England and Wales leader Natalie Bennett told the BBC she had not received official confirmation of the revised proposals "but if it's correct, we are obviously absolutely delighted".

Natalie Bennett
Ms Bennett has been campaigning for her party to be included in the live leaders' debates
"We have really seen the acknowledgment that we are in multiparty politics in Britain, the politics of 2015. This is good for British democracy as well as good for the Green Party."

Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood also welcomed the reports, saying it was important for democracy for voters to be presented with "a clear picture of the choice that they face on polling day".

The SNP's Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, said the revised formats being reported was "very welcome progress", saying the case for the SNP's inclusion was "unanswerable".

"We want these debates to happen, and they need to include the SNP so that the diversity of politics and our democracy across the UK is reflected," he said.

But the Liberal Democrats indicated they would oppose the revised proposals.

A spokesman for the party said it remained opposed to Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband being able to go head to head without Mr Clegg.

"We have always been clear that, as a party of government, we must be able to defend our record in all the TV debates," he said.

"We will continue to make that case in our discussions with the broadcasters."

'Absolute sense'
The Democrat Unionist Party has indicated it will be writing to the BBC and ITV to ask why it is not being included when it is the fourth largest party at Westminster in terms of numbers of MPs.

Party leader and Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson said the proposed debates were "a farce", with the DUP being "excluded from the national debate".

A Labour Party source said: "We want general election TV debates to happen and we have always said who takes part is a matter for the broadcasters."

He said the party would "engage constructively and positively with the broadcasters about these proposals".

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the broadcasters' new proposals seemed designed to call Mr Cameron's bluff.

Miliband, Clegg and Farage
Mr Miliband, Mr Clegg and Mr Farage had urged broadcasters to push ahead with the debates without Mr Cameron
He said Mr Cameron faced a choice to either accept seven-way debates which could "split the left" or continue to resist them on the grounds they could "dominate the campaign".

In an interview with the Radio Times, Tony Hall, the BBC's director general, said it made "absolute sense to have the involvement of the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and UKIP".

"This time round the debates are going to be more important to democracy than last time round. I don't know anyone who can call this election, therefore the notion of hearing those who are competing for your vote being tested and testing one another, is much more important than last time round," he said.

The suggested schedule is for debates to be held on 2 April, 16 April and 30 April, ahead of the UK-wide poll on 7 May.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30935369
I'm actually really surprised they did this, but okay then.

But now the DUP wants in. At this rate, there won't be enough room in the studio for them all to fit by election day.


Also, I have an amendment on my previous post: apparently Alliance aren't unionist anymore, they're neither.

[jwl]

TV election debates will go ahead, say broadcasters

Broadcasters have said plans for three TV general election debates in April will go ahead, despite David Cameron saying he will take part in only one.

It means Mr Cameron - who has rejected a head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband - could be "empty chaired".

Mr Miliband said it was "judgement day" for the prime minister, who was "a weak leader running from his record".

Downing Street said it would not back down on its "final offer" of one seven-way debate in March.

Mr Cameron's communications chief Craig Oliver said it was "disappointing" that the broadcasters were not prepared to take up the prime minister's offer.

"I am ready to discuss at your convenience the logistics of making the debate we have suggested happen," he added in a written response to the broadcasters' decision.

'Running scared'
Downing Street has blamed the broadcasters for "chaotic" negotiations, which have gone on for months.

Mr Miliband said: "I think the broadcasters are absolutely right to reserve the right to empty chair the prime minister.

"These debates don't belong to him; they don't belong to me. They belong to the British people.

"He should stop ducking and weaving. He should stop running scared. He should agree to these debates."

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg urged David Cameron to drop his objections, tweeting: "You haven't got your own way so accept it and take part."

line
Analysis by BBC Political Correspondent Ben Wright

2010 leader debates
The 2010 leader debates gained large audiences
This is a defiant move by the broadcasters.

They could have chosen to blink and accept the "final offer" made by Number 10 on Wednesday and end the negotiation saga.

Instead, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky have said they will continue with three debates in April as planned.

They have made it clear all the debates will happen regardless of whether invited parties turn up or not - and today described the head-to-head debate, with Mr Cameron and and Miliband, as "vital".

But proceeding without Mr Cameron would be a massive step for the broadcasters to take.

And to complicate matters further the one-on-one contest would have to comply with the broadcasters' own rules on fairness and balance - perhaps the basis of a challenge from Number 10.

Downing Street is adamant that it is the broadcasters who have badly mishandled the whole process and that it is "disappointing" that they have not accepted the prime minster's final offer.

But Mr Miliband said it was "make your mind up time" for Mr Cameron - and the ball is back in Downing Street's court.

line
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: "I am pleased that the broadcasters have stood firm at last, but it would have been far better had they stuck with their original proposal which included fewer parties.

"Nonetheless we accept the challenge."

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said: "A Tory prime minister simply cannot be allowed to dictate terms to everyone else taking part."

Green leader Natalie Bennett said Mr Cameron's refusal to take part in the debates as planned was further damaging the reputation of politics and the proposed format was "very fair".

Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood said: "I'm delighted that the broadcasters are holding firm. It would have been wrong for one individual to dictate and change the terms of these debates."

But Peter Robinson, leader of the DUP and First Minister of Northern Ireland, said the debate negotiations had been the "greatest electoral shambles of all time".

"Just who do the broadcasters think they are, that they can set down a diktat?" he told Sky News.

Mr Cameron has raised concerns about the exclusion of the DUP from the broadcasters' plans but the BBC Trust has rejected calls for it to reconsider their participation.

Sky, the BBC, Channel 4 and ITV have invited the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP, the SNP, the Green Party of England and Wales and Plaid Cymru to take part in two debates lasting two hours each during the election campaign.

line
Image from 2010 election debate
Planned debate schedule

April 2: Seven-way debate featuring David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and Leanne Wood (ITV broadcast)

April 16: Seven-way debate featuring David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and Leanne Wood (BBC broadcast)

April 30: Head-to-head debate featuring David Cameron and Ed Miliband (Channel 4 and Sky News broadcast)

line
As it stands, the broadcasters have said the debates will go ahead as originally planned on 2 and 16 April, while a planned head-to-head encounter between the Conservative and Labour leaders will also continue on 30 April.

In a joint letter to Craig Oliver, the four broadcasters said they believed their proposal was more suitable than the one debate proposed by the prime minister.

"We have given your proposal serious consideration but we don't think it achieves the goal of providing our viewers with election debates that can properly explore a reasonably full range of issues," they said.

They added: "We very much hope that all invited leaders will participate in the broadcast debates. However, in the end all we can do - as impartial public service broadcasters - is to provide a fair forum for debates to take place.

"It will always remain the decision of individual leaders whether or not to take part."

The broadcasters said they would be prepared to meet Mr Cameron or his representatives for talks on the way forward.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31771198

The actual letter: http://news.sky.com/story/1440135/tv-el ... media-boss

[Bernkastel]

Unsurprisingly, I believe the reaction of David Cameron has been "Go ahead". He can't get his way, plus so would also be called a U-Turn. Of course, that's hardly stopped politicians before, but it would be hard to spin doctor this.

[Crazedwraith]

How can they empty chair Cameron for the one-on-one debate? Let Milliband speak unopposed for however long? wouldn't that violate some kind of balanced programming laws?

Seems Cameron strategy is insist on so many people taking part that none of them get enough time to make an impact.

[Zaune]

How can they empty chair Cameron for the one-on-one debate? Let Milliband speak unopposed for however long? wouldn't that violate some kind of balanced programming laws?

If Cameron doesn't bother turning up it's his own problem. Besides, the BBC could always have him field questions from the audience or bring in whoever's presenting Newsnight these days.

[Bernkastel]

Here's an update, from The Independant.

The BBC will stop short of “empty chairing” David Cameron, even if he refuses to take part in any television debates, and is considering giving him his own election programme to meet strict rules on impartiality during election campaigns, The Independent on Sunday understands.

Sources say there will be “no tub of lard moment” for Mr Cameron – in reference to the time Roy Hattersley failed to turn up for an appearance on Have I Got News for You and was replaced by the embarrassing prop – meaning there will be no empty rostrum on the platform if the debates go ahead without the premier. Despite the broadcasters’ robust intention to push ahead with the programmes in Mr Cameron’s absence, the BBC appears to be fighting shy of humiliating the Prime Minister.

The row over the leaders’ debates continued to rage yesterday when Ed Miliband formally accepted invitations to appear in all three of the live screen debates – an ITV programme on 2 April featuring seven party leaders (or six without Mr Cameron), the same format on 16 April hosted by the BBC, and a head-to-head debate on 30 April, exactly one week before the election, broadcast simultaneously by Channel 4 and Sky News. This final clash is the subject of the most controversy, because it is supposed to feature Mr Miliband and Mr Cameron. Yet last week, the Prime Minister, in his “final offer” to broadcasters, refused to take part in any of the programmes during the month-long campaign, and insisted that he will join only a seven-way format in the last week of March.

Cameron, Clegg and Brown took part in the 2010 televised debates (Getty) Cameron, Clegg and Brown took part in the 2010 televised debates (Getty)

In a letter to the BBC’s head of political programmes, Sue Inglish, the chair of the broadcasters’ negotiating team, Lord Ashdown, who is running the Liberal Democrat election campaign, formally proposed that Mr Clegg stand in for the premier against Mr Miliband on 30 April.

Mr Cameron’s offer has caused consternation among broadcasters and fellow parties – particularly because it would be before the dissolution of Parliament on 30 March and the full publication of party manifestos. This weekend broadcasters were sticking to their guns, but sources at the BBC expressed caution at anything that might look as if the corporation were humiliating the Prime Minister. And, to comply with election and Ofcom rules about impartiality, if it hosts a debate without Mr Cameron, it would feel compelled to let him have his own programme, an in-depth interview or allow an extended party political broadcast. It is believed that the other broadcasters would follow a similar approach as the BBC.

Mr Miliband, in a speech to Labour’s Scottish conference, said yesterday: “This is what David Cameron used to say about TV election debates: that they were essential to our democracy. That every country apart from Mongolia had them. That he wasn’t going to have any feeble excuses to get out of debates. And now he is doing everything he can to stop them. And it is on the issue of leadership debates that David Cameron’s duplicity has caught up with him.

“He says this election is all about leadership, all about the choice between him and me, and when it comes to a debate between him and me, he’s running scared. He’s running away. I say to David Cameron: you can refuse to face the public, but you can’t deny your record. You can try to chicken out of the debates, but don’t ever again claim that you provide strong leadership, You can try to escape the people’s debates, but you can’t escape the people’s verdict.”

Mr Clegg accused Mr Cameron of “arrogance” yesterday, adding: “If David Cameron is too important or too busy to turn up, if he doesn’t want to defend the record of this coalition government, then I will.”

In his letter to Ms Inglish, Lord Ashdown wrote: “It is deeply disappointing that the Prime Minister is trying to avoid these debates. It is also clear from his ‘final offer’... that he does not want to debate once the Conservative Party’s manifesto has been published. Not only is he refusing to defend the Government’s record, but he is also unwilling to expose his party’s plan for the future to scrutiny by the British public.”

Mr Cameron did not mention the debates when he spoke at a Conservative election rally in Harrow yesterday, with two months to go until polling day. Instead, he seized on the failure of the Labour leader to rule out a coalition deal with the SNP – after Nicola Sturgeon dropped the scrapping of Trident as a red line in any negotiations.

Mr Cameron said: “If you thought the worst outcome for this election was a Labour government led by Ed Miliband, think again. You could end up with a Labour government led by Ed Miliband – propped up by Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party. You could end up with an alliance between the people who want to bankrupt Britain and the people who want to break up Britain.”

Meanwhile, in what will be seen as a victory for allies of Vince Cable, the Business Secretary is to join Mr Clegg for a launch tomorrow of the Lib Dems’ plans “to build a stronger economy”. Last month, Mr Clegg and Danny Alexander held a press conference at the Shard in London on the party’s tax-and-spend plans, which ruffled feathers in Mr Cable’s camp.

Polling by Lord Ashcroft suggests that Mr Alexander is to lose his Inverness seat to the SNP in May, and Mr Clegg has been urged to put Mr Cable at the centre of the party’s election campaign.