Cameron has more excuses not to agree to debate. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

"I want to go and debate": David Cameron on the televised leaders' debates

The Prime Minister has said he would only agree to the TV debates under certain circumstances.

It is 100 days until the general election, and what seems like the 100th development in the sorry saga that is the televised leaders' debates.

This morning, speaking on the BBC's Today programme, David Cameron came the closest he has so far to saying he will take part in the TV debates. However, he caveated his response by saying that he would only participate under certain circumstances.

The very simple question put to him was: "Is it your intention to take part in the television debates?"

He replied:

Yes, I’d like that to happen. But if you include one minor party, Ukip, you have to include another minor party, the Greens . . . The broadcasters have gone rather further than I expected . . . You can’t have someone from Plaid Cymru and the SNP without someone from Northern Ireland, so they’ve got in a bit of a muddle over that.

Pushed on whether he will definitely take part, Cameron would only go so far as to say, "I want to go and debate" and "We've got to get on with these debates".

The circumstances under which he would participate include representation of Northern Ireland in the debates – the DUP and Sinn Fein have so far been left out by the broadcasters – and also to broadcast the debates as soon as possible, before the election campaign.

On the first demand, as George reported last week, it looks like the PM is using the DUP's absence as another excuse not to agree to the debates, as he did when the Greens had been excluded from the panels. Also, the Tories are preparing for the circumstances of having to do a deal with the DUP behind the scenes in anticipation of a hung parliament.

On the second demand, Cameron argued that the television debates during the 2010 election would have been "better outside the election campaign" because "they took the life out of the campaign, because nobody could talk about anything else".

Cameron is coming under increasing pressure to agree to take part, as the broadcasters are coming up with new formats to satisfy the PM's wishes, and his rival party leaders are painting him as a coward for his reticence. Nigel Farage has called Cameron a "chicken" on the issue, and Ed Miliband has accused him of "running scared".

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Labour must reclaim English patriotism if we are to beat Ukip and the Tories

We can't talk about the future of our country unless we can discuss the past. 

I was a parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, but the place which I currently call home is Hackney, London. This distinction is worth explaining. The questions of Labour and Englishness – what exactly is the English problem that we’re trying to solve, why do we need a progressive patriotism, does it already exist, if not why not and if we had one what would it look like? – are, above all, questions of identity and place. We need to build a patriotism that includes and resonates with residents of both Hackney and Thurrock. Currently they are very far apart. 

I’m the little girl who sat on her dad’s shoulders to wave a flag at Princess Anne’s first wedding. And I was also, like Sadiq Khan, waving a flag at the Silver Jubilee in 1977. I’m an ex-Catholic, I’m a Londoner, I’m English and I’m a woman, and all of those identities are important although not necessarily equally so and not necessarily all of the time.

But I’m also a member of the Labour party, not only as a candidate, but now as an activist in Hackney. And that is where I see the difference very strongly between Hackney and what I experienced in Thurrock. 

Thurrock was Ukip ground zero last year - 12,000 people voted for Ukip in a general election for the first time, on top of the 3,500 that had voted for them before in 2010. Most of those 12,000 people had either not voted before, or had voted Labour. 

This isn’t just about being in two different places. Sometimes it feels like more than being in two different countries, or even like being on two different planets. The reality is that large swathes of Labour’s members and supporters don’t identify as patriotic, fundamentally because patriotism has been seized and colonised by the right. We need to understand that, by allowing them to seize it, we are losing an opportunity to be able to reclaim our past. 

We do not have any legitimacy to talk about the future of our country unless we can talk about our past in a better way. We have tried but our efforts have been half-hearted. Take Ed Miliband's call for One Nation Labour, which ended up amounting to a washed-out Union Jack as a visual for our brand. It could have been so much better – an opportunity for an intellectual rebranding and a seizure of Conservative territory for our own ends. Ultimately One Nation Labour was a slogan and not a project. 

There is a section of the left which has a distinct discomfort with the idea of pride in country. It has swallowed the right-wing myth that England’s successes have all been Conservative ones. This is a lie, but one that has spread very effectively. The left’s willingness to swallow it means that we are still living in a Thatcherite paradigm. It is no wonder progressives revolt at the idea of patriotism, when the right’s ideas of duty and authority quash our ideas of ambitions for equality, opportunity for all and challenging injustice. But we risk denying our successes by allowing the right to define Englishness. It’s England that helped establish the principle of the right to vote, the rule of law, equal suffrage, and the fight against racism. 

If Englishness is going to mean anything in modern England, it needs to be as important for those who feel that perhaps they aren’t English as it is for those who feel that they definitely are. And a place must be reserved for those who, though technically English, don’t see their own story within the Conservative myth of Englishness. 

Although this reclaiming is electorally essential, it is not an electoral gimmick. It is fundamental to who we are. Even if we didn’t need it to win, I would be arguing for it.

We need to make sure that progressive patriotism reclaims the visual language that the Conservatives use to dress up their regressive patriotism. Women need to be as much in the pantheon of the radicals as part of the visual identity of Englishness. Women tend to either be there by birth or by marriage, or we are abstract manifestations of ideals like "justice" or "truth" – as seen on city halls and civic buildings across the country. But English women need to be real, rather than just ideal. Englishness does need to be focused on place and connection, and it should include Mary Wollstonecraft and Sylvia Pankhurst as well as Wat Tyler and Thomas Paine. 

We can’t pretend that we’re always right. The most patriotic thing you can do is to admit sometimes that you’re wrong, so that your country can be better. I love my country, for all its faults. But I do not live with them. I try to make my country better. That is progressive patriotism. And I know all of us who want to be part of this can be part of it. 

This article is based on Polly’s contribution to Who Speaks to England? Labour’s English challenge, a new book published today by the Fabian Society and the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester.