Prime Ministerial Debates- Thread

[Undesired Walrus]

Three minutes to go!

[andyandy]

Three minutes to go!

2!

[Darat]

1!

[andyandy]

1!

I vote that Cameron will come across best....

Broon will come across dull but sincere

Clegg Over will take a gamble and go on the attack - but not quite pull it off

Cameron will have the quips and the easy manner....

If only we had Paxman and none of these ridiculous rules. it's likely to be a damp squib.

we shall see.

[Undesired Walrus]

I had to watch the end of Corrie so I wouldn't miss the start of the debates. Somehow I hope the next 90 minutes is more interesting than Tyron's libido.

[andyandy]

what's with the studio and graphics?

it looks like a cheesy 80s gameshow....

"and your first question for an electric toaster...."

[Undesired Walrus]

If only we had Paxman and none of these ridiculous rules.

I don't agree. Paxo serves his purpose, but not for this.

Oh, God ITV, did you have to have that naff beginning credits? Well, at least Ant and Dec weren't the moderators. I wouldn't be surprised.

[Agatha]

It's painfully scripted. I would prefer to see some questions sprung on them without preparation, and their ties are silly. Do they really think we tell them apart by the colours of their ties?

[Ashles]

I liked Nick Clegg:

"This government has spent billions of... money."

[Ashles]

David Cameron - still looking like Odo from Star Trek: DS9

[Ashles]

Nick Clegg - making huge scribbling out of his notes while Gordon Brown talks.

ETA: I like him, but he looks a bit out of his depth compared to the other two.

[andyandy]

25 mins in

i can't remember a single point of interest so far....

we've got

1) crime = bad - let's reduce it.

2) immigration = a little bad a little good - let's have some limits on it

[Ashles]

I had to watch the end of Corrie so I wouldn't miss the start of the debates. Somehow I hope the next 90 minutes is more interesting than Tyron's libido.

Well is it Tyrone's? That's what the should ask the leaders.

[Ashles]

25 mins in

i can't remember a single point of interest so far....

we've got

1) crime = bad - let's reduce it.

2) immigration = a little bad a little good - let's have some limits on it

I remember something about "schools of crime"...

(Gordon stop mentioning the posters now - you're coming acoss as annoyed by them)

[andyandy]

I remember something about "schools of crime"...

(Gordon stop mentioning the posters now - you're coming acoss as annoyed by them)

Cleggover's comment about restorative justice does resonate with me - but doubt it'll play well with the Daily Waily....

[andyandy]

cleggover's winning this for me.....

having a three-person platform is going to be a big boon for the third party....

[andyandy]

"We are in a grade-driven culture. We are over-examined and under-taught."

The best comment of the night from a 17 year old.

[Ashles]

Well so far they have all managed to avoid turning to an opponent and shouting 'Bollocks!'

[Ashles]

and their ties are silly. Do they really think we tell them apart by the colours of their ties?

I agree that is starting to annoy me now.

Maybe they should wear coloured suits like It's a Knockout

[Ashles]

"The mre they attack each other the more they sound the same"

Nice one Cleggy. :)

[Agatha]

Unlike me, who has shouted "bollocks!" to the screen several times!

I think Clegg is coming over remarkably well, and is trying hard to avoid Brown's attempts to paint the Lib Dems as Labour-lite. Cameron looks like an airbrushed spray-tanned plastic doll.

[Ashles]

It's painfully scripted. I would prefer to see some questions sprung on them without preparation

They are. They don't now what the questions will be, only the general topic of the evening - domestic affairs.

[Ashles]

Unlike me, who has shouted "bollocks!" to the screen several times!

I think Clegg is coming over remarkably well, and is trying hard to avoid Brown's attempts to paint the Lib Dems as Labour-lite. Cameron looks like an airbrushed spray-tanned plastic doll.

Nick Clegg seems to have settled into his stride over the last ten minutes and looks more comfortable.

[Ashles]

The Lib Dems Bank Tax is interesting - however as I work for one of the banks that wasn't bailed out I wonder how it will work for us.

Will banks like ours be exempt?

[Ashles]

When it comes to economics Gordon Brown always looks pretty comfortable and confident

[andyandy]

Cameron looks like an airbrushed spray-tanned plastic doll.

Cameron's polished arse-face is positively glistening....

Clegg's definitely winning this now...he's got the whole "I'm going to tell it how it is" man on the street sincerity sorted....

[Ashles]

I'm surprised there aren't more posters in this thread - I know it's not Twitter but this is pretty big in terms of UK politics.

[ArcturusA]

I keep pausing to post reactions, but then find myself missing what they're saying while I do.

Perhaps more people will post once the debate is over.

[Professor Yaffle]

I agree Clegg is coming across well - painting himself as the one you can trust to not spin and decieve - and capitalising on the fact that the other two are attacking eachother, giving him more space to make his case. Shiny-face is a prat, but I suspect that he comes across well to those with Tory inclinations. Brown looks much more comfortable in a debate than he does in a lot of other settings.

[Ashles]

I keep pausing to post reactions, but then find myself missing what they're saying while I do.

Perhaps more people will post once the debate is over.

Fair point.

I like Nick Clegg's answer on military equipment. Why haven't our guys got that mine roller?

[andyandy]

I keep pausing to post reactions, but then find myself missing what they're saying while I do.

Perhaps more people will post once the debate is over.

listen on radio 5 - that way you miss cameron's squeaky balloon sweat....

[Ashles]

This is interesting - Clegg proposing reduction of Trident, Cameron and Brown going 'Like hell - Iran hello?'

Not sure that's a good stance for Clegg. He's talking about Russia, but we don't keep nukes to protect against Russia any more.

[Agatha]

Aaargh, GB said "less businesses". Fewer, you moron. FEWER!

[Ashles]

Cameron looked a bit surprised at Gordon's sudden unexpected knowledge of military helicopters and terrain.

[ArcturusA]

This is interesting - Clegg proposing reduction of Trident, Cameron and Brown going 'Like hell - Iran hello?'

Not sure that's a good stance for Clegg. He's talking about Russia, but we don't keep nukes to protect against Russia any more.

I agree. Clegg's Trident stance is one of the few things I disagree with him about.

I think Brown came out on top on that whole back and forth about the military.

[Ashles]

Ooh I feel Gordon's mouth's writing cheques his body can't cash.

Those kind of NHS targets seem pretty hard to ensure.

Cameron seems taking sensible pro NHS stand.

[Agatha]

itv.com has a viewers poll running -

Who do you think is winning the debate so far?
Clegg 47%
Brown 34%
Cameron 19%
at 21.45

[Ashles]

itv.com has a viewers poll running -

Who do you think is winning the debate so far?
Clegg 47%
Brown 34%
Cameron 19%
at 21.45

Wow - these live debates really could change things ore drastically than expected.

I know pre election polls are fairly unreliable, but it does feel like that.

When so many people are disillusioned with the main partise (who appear to be going out of their way to appear more similar) a milder third party with nothing to lose could really clean up.

[Ashles]

David Cameron keeps doing that "Thank you for that question. I think it is a really important question" stuff at the start that equates to 'Ummmm...'

It reminds me of essays at school where you are counted by the word and spend the first two paragraphs rephrasing the essay title.

[MarkCorrigan]

My god Cameron is an ass.

Does he actually HAVE any policies? He's talking a lot but he doesn't seem to be really saying anything.

[andyandy]

I agree. Clegg's Trident stance is one of the few things I disagree with him about.

.

I thought it was his strongest point :)

[andyandy]

1!

I vote that Cameron will come across best....

Broon will come across dull but sincere

Clegg Over will take a gamble and go on the attack - but not quite pull it off

Cameron will have the quips and the easy manner....

If only we had Paxman and none of these ridiculous rules. it's likely to be a damp squib.

we shall see.

well, shows how much i know....

cameron was poor
Clegg shone
..and well, yes Broon was dull but sincere....

will it actually make any difference at the polls? Let's see....

[Agatha]

Tomorrow's polling will be very interesting; I think Clegg came out ahead on that debate.

[ArcturusA]

will it actually make any difference at the polls? Let's see....

Depends how many people are actually watching these debates, I guess. It'll be interesting to see the viewer ratings.

Didn't think much of Clegg's closing speech. Not much substance besides "we're not Con or Lab." Oh well, opportunity lost.

[andyandy]

Depends how many people are actually watching these debates, I guess. It'll be interesting to see the viewer ratings.

Didn't think much of Clegg's closing speech. Not much substance besides "we're not Con or Lab." Oh well, opportunity lost.

true - i don't think scrapping trident plays well with middle england - but i don't really know...

agree about the closing speech too - bit light-weight from clegg.

[MarkCorrigan]

They all had poor closing speeches, but I'm amazed at how well Clegg and Brown did.

I actually thought Cameron would do better than that.

[ArcturusA]

On the BBC Coverage:

"Home Secretary Alan Johnson says Gordon Brown won on substance, Mr Clegg on style and that Mr Cameron lost on both."

That's a fair assessment, I think, though Clegg may have been a little way ahead of Brown on substance too.

[funk de fino]

I never saw it as I am in work and out of the country. From the posts it looks like Brown came across better than some thought he may and that Clegg did really well. I always knew that, come the push, Cameron and the Tories have nothing.

I think a hung Parliament with the Libs holding the key.

[commandlinegamer]

Just think they missed a trick not having Plaid Cymru or the SNP on; it's not all about Middle England.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm surprised that people think Clegg came out on top. I thought he did very poorly (What was up with putting his hand in his pocket?). I've never thought "I'm the honest abe in the middle of these two monsters" works well for any third candidate, be it Jesse Jackson or John Edwards.

Why do you think he did so well?

Cameron was rather forgettable. One point I couldn't understand was when he complained that a teaching panel had send a boy back to school who had stabbed another pupil or something. His complaint was that the Headteacher couldn't expel him. Well, what if the headteacher hadn't expelled him? If that was the case, Cameron would probably be complaining about how a headteacher could do such a thing.

I'm glad there was more back and forth than I originally thought there would be.

[Lothian]

I agree that Clegg did best. Not sure it will make much difference.

[Professor Yaffle]

ITV's panel of floating voters in a marginal (Bolton I think) also liked Clegg, and seemed to prefer Cameron over Brown.

[Undesired Walrus]

Just think they missed a trick not having Plaid Cymru or the SNP on; it's not all about Middle England.

I agree. Hopefully one day. Although I wish they would stop using London as an insult.

They all had poor closing speeches, but I'm amazed at how well Clegg and Brown did.


Why do you think Brown did well?

[ArcturusA]

ITV poll:

43% for Clegg
26% for Cameron
20% for Brown
11% No winner

[Darat]

Boring - when do they do the obstacle course round?

[Ashles]

Just think they missed a trick not having Plaid Cymru or the SNP on; it's not all about Middle England.

It pretty much actually is. What policies would laid Cymru or the SNP have that might significantly swing things?

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm surprised that people think Clegg came out on top. I thought he did very poorly (What was up with putting his hand in his pocket?). I've never thought "I'm the honest abe in the middle of these two monsters" works well for any third candidate, be it Jesse Jackson or John Edwards.

Why do you think he did so well?

Everyone else seemed to think so as well, if you look at the polls.

Honestly, I think that for the most part he was engaging, far more than the other two, and I genuinely think Cameron came over as a total tit.

[Debaser]

Just think they missed a trick not having Plaid Cymru or the SNP on; it's not all about Middle England.

Parties representing an absolute maximum 10% of the electorate getting a fifth of the available time to make a case, a case irrelevant to 90% of its potential viewership?

[MarkCorrigan]

Why do you think Brown did well?

I don't.

He didn't totally bomb though.

[MarkCorrigan]

ITV's panel of floating voters in a marginal (Bolton I think) also liked Clegg, and seemed to prefer Cameron over Brown.

There's a shock. I was especially surprised when they thought Cameron and his "Immigration- BAD!" rubbish was a wonderous idea. :rolleyes:

[Undesired Walrus]

Brown's quip about 'this is answer time not question time' was excruciating. I wonder how long Campbell perfected that.

Anyone watching Newsnight? Both political commentators seem to be inexplicably sitting on a naughty stool with Kirsty as their stern headteacher.

BTW: If Alan Johnson was PM I think he probably would have won today. It's his thing.

[garethdjb]

Just think they missed a trick not having Plaid Cymru or the SNP on; it's not all about Middle England.

They're going to do a Welsh version and I assume a Scottish one too. Mind you, I'd love to have seen that graph thing they had after on ITV plummet when that whining Gog Ieuan Wyn Jones was speaking.

[MarkCorrigan]

They're going to do a Welsh version and I assume a Scottish one too. Mind you, I'd love to have seen that graph thing they had after on ITV plummet when that whining Gog Ieuan Wyn Jones was speaking.

What about Alex Salmond?

Most people outside of Scotland (as far as I'm aware) think he's a pompous overblown douche with a ridiculous level of confidence in his party.

My god, ITV viewers would simply love that.

[funk de fino]

What about Alex Salmond?

Most people outside of Scotland (as far as I'm aware) think he's a pompous overblown douche with a ridiculous level of confidence in his party.

My god, ITV viewers would simply love that.

He is but he is also a smart cookie. Very good in these sort of things.

[MarkCorrigan]

He is but he is also a smart cookie. Very good in these sort of things.

Very true, from the admittedly little I've seen he seems a very intelligent man who can talk his way out of a whole lot of things.

I still think he's a pompous douche and I think his ideas are not really something I agree with.

Also, I just LOVE the guy with a very strong (West?) African accent talking about how he thinks Cameron is the one for him. HA. An immigrant voting Tory? My god.

[Undesired Walrus]

Emily on Newsnight just asked about Cameron's massive gaff: does he really think we are gearing up for a nuclear war with CHINA? Charlie Rose now on Newsnight, nice to get US interest.

[MarkCorrigan]

I missed the guys name, is he the one talking on ITV too? Because that guy is an idiot.

[geni]

Emily on Newsnight just asked about Cameron's massive gaff: does he really think we are gearing up for a nuclear war with CHINA?

Well if you want serious action to adress global climate change.....

[MarkCorrigan]

Emily on Newsnight just asked about Cameron's massive gaff: does he really think we are gearing up for a nuclear war with CHINA? Charlie Rose now on Newsnight, nice to get US interest.

Salmond just brought that up.

HA. That's awesome.

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh Mr Hauge, you're flailing.

His comment about China was not to illustrate the uncertain future, he made a really stupid comment that's going to kick his ass around the world if he wins PMship.

Poor old Hauge, I actually have some respect for him, but he has to defend his leaders rather pathetic performance.

[Undesired Walrus]

One of the great things about the debates is that however much you script it, it is never going to be airtight like a press release. You are always going to risk a gaff that shows your inexperience. Flailing into 90 minutes without a telepromter isn't going do be good for your PR.

Take Cameron's China gaff for instance. If it was about an uncertain future why not pick Kyrgyzstan? Ha. Brilliant.

ETA: Mark: Are you sure it was Charlie Rose you call the idiot (This guy? (http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=charlie%20rose&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi))? I really like they bloke.

[MarkCorrigan]

One of the great things about the debates is that however much you script it, it is never going to be airtight like a press release. You are always going to risk a gaff that shows your inexperience. Flailing into 90 minutes without a telepromter isn't going do be good for your PR.

Take Cameron's China gaff for instance. If it was about an uncertain future why not pick Kyrgyzstan? Ha. Brilliant.


Oh I know, I thought that was hilarious.

ETA: Mark: Are you sure it was Charlie Rose you call the idiot (This guy? (http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=charlie%20rose&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi))? I really like they bloke.

It wasn't Charlie Rose, I was actually asking you that. :p

It was someone called Wolf? I'm not really sure who he was, but he seemed to think that Gordon won, but that Cameron would have been best.

[Undesired Walrus]

Wolf Blitzer?

Does anyone have the exact quote of Camerons? Priceless. Will love to see how the Tories spin that.

[MarkCorrigan]

No no, his surname was Wolf I think...I'm not sure. He was a bit of a prat, whatever.

So who is looking forward to the next one? I sure as hell am.

[Undesired Walrus]

Very much so, and without the ridiculous credits at the beginning, hopefully.

I suppose now all the expectations will be on Cleggie. His back must be raw with supporters patting him profousely as they read the polls. The Lib Dems probably can hardly believe their luck tonight.

Although I thought his performance was at the time lacklusture, I'm now starting to believe that he actually did well, based simply on the extraordinary amount of people saying that he did. I just thought he was standed Cleggie: Angry, the 'third man', apple stuck in his throat. Perhaps he came out well because most people at home said "There's a third guy?".

Very saddened at Brown's comments on Trident btw. The guy, on the whole, looks more and more like a melting Edwardian candle.

[MarkCorrigan]

I missed the credits actually, how bad were they?

[Undesired Walrus]

Like the bastard child of Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway and Deal or no Deal.

[Rolfe]

Most of the bits I saw was all about things that are devolved in Scotland. What a waste of time. Total irrelevance.

Rolfe.

[MarkCorrigan]

Most of the bits I saw was all about things that are devolved in Scotland. What a waste of time. Total irrelevance.

Rolfe.

For you, not for the vast majority of the country.

I like you Rolfe, I think that things not covered by devolution should certainly be addressed, so don't get me wrong, but seriously? Seriously?

Let's compare the populations from the 2001 census shall we?

England: 49,138,831
Scotland: 5,062,011
Wales: 2,903,085
NI: 1,685,267

Percentages:

England: 83.6%
Scotland: 8.6%
Wales: 4.9%
NI: 2.9%

I know that there are issues that aren't covered by the devolutions of Scotland, Wales and NI, but frankly:

1. These were questions prepared by the general public, presumably those from Manchester, since that's where it was, but still, the topics that are or are not covered by the devolution isn't likely to be a big consideration for them.

2. There are going to be 2 more of these things. That one of the three didn't cover things of interest to a grand total of, if we assume NI, Scotland and Wales to be exactly the same in order to really give the devolved nations the maximum amount of influence, 16.4% of the nation isn't really a surprise, nor is it something I consider particularly earth-shattering in importance. Calling them a waste of time simply because they didn't address you is a rather narrow view of things.

[Undesired Walrus]

Most of the bits I saw was all about things that are devolved in Scotland. What a waste of time. Total irrelevance.

Rolfe.

I'll watch the Scottish debates with less bitterness and more interest.

[funk de fino]

For you, not for the vast majority of the country.

I like you Rolfe, I think that things not covered by devolution should certainly be addressed, so don't get me wrong, but seriously? Seriously?

Let's compare the populations from the 2001 census shall we?

England: 49,138,831
Scotland: 5,062,011
Wales: 2,903,085
NI: 1,685,267

Percentages:

England: 83.6%
Scotland: 8.6%
Wales: 4.9%
NI: 2.9%

I know that there are issues that aren't covered by the devolutions of Scotland, Wales and NI, but frankly:

1. These were questions prepared by the general public, presumably those from Manchester, since that's where it was, but still, the topics that are or are not covered by the devolution isn't likely to be a big consideration for them.

2. There are going to be 2 more of these things. That one of the three didn't cover things of interest to a grand total of, if we assume NI, Scotland and Wales to be exactly the same in order to really give the devolved nations the maximum amount of influence, 16.4% of the nation isn't really a surprise, nor is it something I consider particularly earth-shattering in importance. Calling them a waste of time simply because they didn't address you is a rather narrow view of things.

I suppose when our "national" news has stories about *Wayne Rooneys ankle as a second story then we tend to get a bit grumpy and touchy up here.

*substitute with Beckhams metatarsal, Owens ligaments and Rooneys metatarsal anytime over the past years ;)

[Soapy Sam]

Retune to Al Jazeera.
Wayne Rooney is rarely mentioned.

I would expect a debate by 3 English politicians on "Domestic issues" to cover precisely the issues devolved to Edinburgh and Cardiff. I understand there are other debates to come which might be of more relevance to viewers outside England.

[MarkCorrigan]

I suppose when our "national" news has stories about *Wayne Rooneys ankle as a second story then we tend to get a bit grumpy and touchy up here.

*substitute with Beckhams metatarsal, Owens ligaments and Rooneys metatarsal anytime over the past years ;)

Which is fair enough, hell I love football and I get hacked off that those stories are so massively important :p but when it comes to politics, there isn't a great deal you can do about it.

[Rolfe]

It's not an easy question. Of course viewers in England wouldn't have wanted the SNP or PC to be included. And debating devolved matters during a Westminster election campaign would be seen as pointless.

On the other hand, in Scotland the SNP gets more votes than the Tories and is currently in government in Holyrood. Broadcasting a debate to the whole of Scotland which excludes that party, and which spends a great deal of time talking about things which are completely irrelevant to a Westminster election in Scotland (without even an on-screen caption reminding viewers of that), isn't a good thing.

Mark makes an excellent case for Scottish independence - you're only 8.6% of the population, so just shut up and take it when we mess with your democratic process. Sure.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Very much so, and without the ridiculous credits at the beginning, hopefully.


..snip...

Isn't the next one on Sky News?

[Darat]

...snip...

Mark makes an excellent case for Scottish independence - you're only 8.6% of the population, so just shut up and take it when we mess with your democratic process. Sure.

Rolfe.

That wasn't his case at all - his case was that your statement "Most of the bits I saw was all about things that are devolved in Scotland. What a waste of time. Total irrelevance." was erroneous.

[Rolfe]

I clarify. Total irrelevance to voters in Scotland, total waste of time in that context.

Great programme for English voters, I've no doubt. Unfortunately we were stuck with it too.

Rolfe.

[Lothian]

I clarify. Total irrelevance to voters in Scotland, total waste of time in that context.

Great programme for English voters, I've no doubt. Unfortunately we were stuck with it too.

Rolfe.The debate discussed immigration. Does no one in Scotland have any opinions on immigration?

The debate discussed MP's expenses and reformation of the UK parliament. Does no one in Scotland have any opinions on MP's expenses and the UK parliament?

The debate discussed the UK armed forces. Does no one in Scotland have any opinions on the UK armed forces?

The debate discussed the economy. Does no one in Scotland have any opinions on the UK economy?

[Rolfe]

Aagggghhhh! My original post commented that I didn't see the whole thing. I was commenting on the bits I happened to see. (I was setting up a new TV I bought yesterday, and perforce dropped in and out of various programmes.)

Rolfe.

[Ashles]

It's not an easy question. Of course viewers in England wouldn't have wanted the SNP or PC to be included. And debating devolved matters during a Westminster election campaign would be seen as pointless.

On the other hand, in Scotland the SNP gets more votes than the Tories and is currently in government in Holyrood. Broadcasting a debate to the whole of Scotland which excludes that party, and which spends a great deal of time talking about things which are completely irrelevant to a Westminster election in Scotland (without even an on-screen caption reminding viewers of that), isn't a good thing.

Then you have an issue with your Media not political debates.

Mark makes an excellent case for Scottish independence - you're only 8.6% of the population, so just shut up and take it when we mess with your democratic process. Sure.

Hearing the viewpoint of the three main political parties is not 'messing' with anyone's democratic process. If anything you are the one requesting bias and and an unfair proportion of your personal viewpoint represented.

Should we stop with the SNP and Paid Cymru? Should the Green party be on the panel? BNP too? Natural Health party?

To be a meaningful debate it needs to be between the three main parties who are the only serious contenders to be the next government.
Sorry but not every minority view (and however much you may not like it, the SNP is a minority view) can be given an equal platform.

[Rolfe]

By that token, every party is a minority one, as none of them gets over 50% of the total vote. What has happened here is that the party which got 18% of the vote in Scotland last time was excluded, while the party that got 16% was fully included.

Way to go, unionists.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

By that token, every party is a minority one, as none of them gets over 50% of the total vote. What has happened here is that the party which got 18% of the vote in Scotland last time was excluded, while the party that got 16% was fully included.

Way to go, unionists.

Rolfe.

What was the SNP's percentage of votes in Wales?

[Ashles]

By that token, every party is a minority one, as none of them gets over 50% of the total vote. What has happened here is that the party which got 18% of the vote in Scotland last time was excluded, while the party that got 16% was fully included.

That's why they restrict it to parties that actually have a chance of winning the general election. It's hard to understand why you can't understand this except that you are concinved your own minority view should have the same media presence as those which have much greater relevance to the vast majority of voters

[Mashuna]

What was the SNP's percentage of votes in Wales?

I understand it was on a par with the Plaid Cymru performance in Scotland.

[Darat]

That's why they restrict it to parties that actually have a chance of winning the general election. ...snip....

And that is the bit that Rolfe seems to be forgetting - this is an election that covers the whole of the country, not just one of the regions, so it makes sense to look at the percentage of votes a party got in the last general election not the percentage in just one region. I could understand the argument more if the SNP was a national party that fought across the whole of the country but it isn't.

Saying all that I still don't think we should have any of these debates!

[Rolfe]

That's why they restrict it to parties that actually have a chance of winning the general election. It's hard to understand why you can't understand this except that you are concinved your own minority view should have the same media presence as those which have much greater relevance to the vast majority of voters


Please link to where I said the SNP should have had the same media presence in that debate. I was complaining about the effect of what actually happened. I acknowledged that there wasn't an easy answer if these bloody debates had to be run.

I'm heartily sick and tired of my own nation being constantly sidelined and ignored as a "minority" within this behemoth of the UK.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Please link to where I said the SNP should have had the same media presence in that debate. I was complaining about the effect of what actually happened. I acknowledged that there wasn't an easy answer if these bloody debates had to be run.

I'm heartily sick and tired of my own nation being constantly sidelined and ignored as a "minority" within this behemoth of the UK.

Rolfe.

Yet as Lothian demonstrated that did not happen.

[Rolfe]

Saying all that I still don't think we should have any of these debates!


I agree with you. I think they were a very bad idea from a number of perspectives. There was never going to be a way to be fair to the major parties in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and arguably the smaller UK-wide parties can also legitimately complain about bias and exclusion.

It also smacks far too much of US-style presidential politics. Fine for the political system they have in the USA, but it doesn't sit well with British politics of the constituency vote.

Rolfe.

[Undesired Walrus]

Aagggghhhh! My original post commented that I didn't see the whole thing. I was commenting on the bits I happened to see. (I was setting up a new TV I bought yesterday, and perforce dropped in and out of various programmes.)

Rolfe.

Well then maybe you should withold judgement on it being of 'total' irrelevance until you see the actual debate.

[Undesired Walrus]

It also smacks far too much of US-style presidential politics. Fine for the political system they have in the USA, but it doesn't sit well with British politics of the constituency vote.

Rolfe.

To not listen to the views of the leaders is a profound mistake, given that the people you elect will be voting on the very issues that their leadership sets before them. Private memebers bills hardly ever pass. The British system has a far more vicious whip system than America too, with many of your local MP's dragged into a 'yay' or 'nay' vote.

Go to your local hustings, listen to what your representative has to say, but while you mull it out, consider what their leader has to say as well. They set the ideology for the next five years.

[MarkCorrigan]

I clarify. Total irrelevance to voters in Scotland, total waste of time in that context.

Great programme for English voters, I've no doubt. Unfortunately we were stuck with it too.

Rolfe.

So....why are you complaining about the debate itself?

Seriously, when you bring in the comparison of the SNP performance compared to the Tory party in Scotland it makes zero sense. It would be completely moronic to allow equal airtime to the SNP and PC in a national debate when this means that 2/5 of the show is only really relevent to less than 1/5 of the population.

I understand that you thought it was a waste of time airing it in Scotland based on your admitted ignorance of a large portion of the show, but the problem isn't with the debate itself, it's with ITV who decided to broadcast it all over the nation.


As for your comment that this sort of thing doesn't sit well with UK style politics, I would agree with you....if the leaders were just trying to smarm their way into power. I admit, personality and charisma were certainly factors, but the three leaders discussed the respective policy ideas that the parties they represent adhere to. This is not something that happens in a US presidential debate because there is no real party unity in the US, and in fact I think made the debate work in the UK system very well.

Tell me something, do you vote for your MP based on party, or person? I will go ahead here and assume it's party (SNP, I believe) as most people do. Given that people in the UK vote for a party, be it Labour, Tory, LibDem, Green or whoever else they agree with, how was allowing the leaders to effectively field questions based on party policy not a great idea? This debate wasn't a pissing contest between the three leaders to anything like the extent that the US debates are, but was a party policy driven discussion.

[Rolfe]

I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English system. I'm sure it was a fine programme for English voters. But make no mistake, it's going to skew the vote in Scotland and Wales compared to what was likely to happen if the debate hadn't taken place, or hadn't been broadcast there (a bit hard to organise, practically speaking), or if a debate that allowed representation from the main parties in Scotland and Wales had been broadcast in these countries.

And this was of course very deliberate. You rightly point out that many people vote for the party rather than for the individual candidate. So excluding any representation from the party favoured by up to 30% of Scots in some opinion polls is a pretty transparent trick.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English UK system. ....snip...

See above Rolfe - I've corrected your mistake - we are not talking about an English election this is the general election for the UK.

[Ashles]

I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English system. I'm sure it was a fine programme for English voters. But make no mistake, it's going to skew the vote in Scotland and Wales compared to what was likely to happen if the debate hadn't taken place, or hadn't been broadcast there (a bit hard to organise, practically speaking), or if a debate that allowed representation from the main parties in Scotland and Wales had been broadcast in these countries.

And how do you know this?

And this was of course very deliberate. You rightly point out that many people vote for the party rather than for the individual candidate. So excluding any representation from the party favoured by up to 30% of Scots in some opinion polls is a pretty transparent trick.

Rolfe.

Conspiracy theories now. :rolleyes:

This is fairly ludicrous - the whole election process does not revolve solely (or to any great degree) around Scotland and this election debate correctly represented that.

Anyway it hardly seems like anyone voting for the SNP is going to be swayed to vote differently by watching a TV debate which didn't have an SNP representative.

By your argument a BNP supporter should make all the same claims you make and demand the same representation in any such debate (And they would at least have a stronger case in that they actually can and have won seats in England) and so should every other minority party.
Which would of course render such public debates impossible.

Or is that your aim? No debate whatsoever allowed unless it discusses what you personally feel is important?

For someone worrying so much about the democratic process you seem quite opposed to it working efficiently or fairly for anyone outside the SNP.

[Darat]

I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English system. ..snip..

Psst - what about Northern Ireland....

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English system. I'm sure it was a fine programme for English voters. But make no mistake, it's going to skew the vote in Scotland and Wales compared to what was likely to happen if the debate hadn't taken place, or hadn't been broadcast there (a bit hard to organise, practically speaking), or if a debate that allowed representation from the main parties in Scotland and Wales had been broadcast in these countries.

And this was of course very deliberate. You rightly point out that many people vote for the party rather than for the individual candidate. So excluding any representation from the party favoured by up to 30% of Scots in some opinion polls is a pretty transparent trick.

Rolfe.

That's 30% of 8.6%, right?

Gee, I wonder why such a staggeringly popular view wasn't represented on a national stage. :rolleyes:

[Rolfe]

Psst - what about Northern Ireland....


I did mention it above. Same thing.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I'm not expecting you to agree with me. Curse the bloody union anyway.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

I did mention it above. Same thing.

Rolfe.

No that was in a different post - you'd almost think you were only concerned with Scotland...

[Fiona]

As an aside, there was a phone in thing with Salmond and Wyn Jones the other day on radio 4 (part of a series I think). 3 english people phoned (surprisingly high proportion, I thought).Two wanted to say there should be no Scottish MP's in Westminster - quite vehement about it and quite ill informed, I have to say. And the other one very kindly pointed out that if Scotland votes for independence we will be less free because we will be ruled by Brussels. I couldn't make any sense of that one.

But it seems there is some interest in Scottish politics in england, at least amongst those who listen to radio 4.

[Darat]

...snip...

But it seems there is some interest in Scottish politics in england, at least amongst those who listen to radio 4.

Of course there is, we all live in the same country after all! And I think there should have been a question last night (since it was about domestic affairs) about devolution etc. and the plans and policies that the parties have on the matter. However I suspect that might have opened it up to even more criticism even though it would simply have been reflecting reality.

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought Cameron's: "I spoke with a black man" was pretty funny, especially as it came under the discussion on immigration. The political equivalent of "some of my best friends are black..".

Seeing as the bloke he was talking about was an immigrant, wouldn't calling him an immigrant suffice? Why call him a black man?

[Darat]

I'd say it was one of his practised phrases - Cameron was obviously doing what he always does, that is he has set responses to deal with certain key words he hears - we've seen what happens when he is asked to answer something off his prepared script.

grRmYk6f6M4

[Agatha]

What about the smaller parties?

The BBC is to hold separate leader debates in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. In addition, parties that have demonstrated electoral support, such as UKIP, the Greens and the BNP, will be given more space on news bulletins in the run-up to the BBC debate so they can have their say. It is understood Sky News will hold debates in Scotland and Wales.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8587362.stm This was also mentioned several times in the run up to last night's debate.

[Rolfe]

Yes, we'll have to see how that works out.

Rolfe.

[funk de fino]

Anyway it hardly seems like anyone voting for the SNP is going to be swayed to vote differently by watching a TV debate which didn't have an SNP representative.

Wrong.

By your argument a BNP supporter should make all the same claims you make and demand the same representation in any such debate (And they would at least have a stronger case in that they actually can and have won seats in England) and so should every other minority party.
Which would of course render such public debates impossible.

Which constituencies did they win last UK election?

[Rolfe]

Conspiracy theories now. :rolleyes:


Oh, you think ruling patries always make sure they bend over backwards to give rivals they cordially detext a fair crack of the whip? Really?

This is fairly ludicrous - the whole election process does not revolve solely (or to any great degree) around Scotland and this election debate correctly represented that.


And that's exactly what's wrong with this incorporating union. So much for the equal partnership of nations.

Anyway it hardly seems like anyone voting for the SNP is going to be swayed to vote differently by watching a TV debate which didn't have an SNP representative.


Which planet are you on? The more the "Big Three" strut the stage and pretend its all about them, the more the smaller parties are edged out. And that affects the SNP and PC (etc.), with their large followings in their own countries, just as much as it affects UKIP and the Greens - probably more, actually.

By your argument a BNP supporter should make all the same claims you make and demand the same representation in any such debate (And they would at least have a stronger case in that they actually can and have won seats in England) and so should every other minority party.
Which would of course render such public debates impossible.


It's a legitimate point of view. It's not a case I'd go so far as to make, but I could see how it could be argued.

Or is that your aim? No debate whatsoever allowed unless it discusses what you personally feel is important?

For someone worrying so much about the democratic process you seem quite opposed to it working efficiently or fairly for anyone outside the SNP.


Me, personally? I'm talking about a serious democratic deficit inherent in this grandstanding style of politics, affecting three of the four COUNTRIES that make up the UK.

Rolfe.

[Undesired Walrus]

So when is the cut-off then Funk? When you have constituency seats?

[Darat]

...snip..

And that's exactly what's wrong with this incorporating union. So much for the equal partnership of nations.

...snip...

Tell me Rolfe what rights do you not have that say an English person has in the UK?

[MarkCorrigan]

Tell me Rolfe what rights do you not have that say an English person has in the UK?

While I don't think bringing rights into it is really helpful, I can see what you mean.

What makes it worse for me is that I could almost see it from a Welsh standpoint because they have the same legal system and the level of devolution is so much lower. Scotland though? Reasonably highly devolved with a seperate legal system such that if I obtained a law degree in England or Wales I couldn't practice law in Scotland and a monetary system that doesn't wholly mesh with the rest of the UK.

Other than that though, they're all tied down by those scum in Westminster :rolleyes:

ETA:
Most of the bits I saw was all about things that are devolved in Scotland. What a waste of time. Total irrelevance.

Rolfe.

Assuming this consists of a significant portion of the debate, what the hell?

If you have so many devolved powers you feel you can brand a whole debate a total waste of time for Scotland that would suggest to me that you aren't quite so inconvenienced by the union as you would like us to think.

Which is it, you have no power, or so much that we waste your time with a national debate focused on a strip of things that aren't relevant to Sctoland?

[Darat]

While I don't think bringing rights into it is really helpful, I can see what you mean.

...snip...

I think it is - for instance Rolfe as a Scottish person has the same rights within our country as I do being an English person, the idea therefore that there is some "inequality" because of where we were born in our country is simply not true, or rather no more true than there is "inequality" because I was born in one of the poorest regions of our country and someone else was born in one of the wealthiest regions of our country.

[Ashles]

Which constituencies did they win last UK election?

I didn't say in the UK election - they won seats in the European Parliament - although in the UK election they took almost 200,000 votes.

In England their voice and presence is greater than the SNP.

[Ashles]

Oh, you think ruling patries always make sure they bend over backwards to give rivals they cordially detext a fair crack of the whip? Really?

And your solution is to disproportionally represent the minority groups?

Well the one you personally support anyway.

And that's exactly what's wrong with this incorporating union. So much for the equal partnership of nations.

It's not an equal partnership though is it? One country has far more inhabitants than the others.
England represents 84% of the population of the UK, yet for some reason you expect it to give specifically Scottish issues an equal representation?

Dream on.

Which planet are you on? The more the "Big Three" strut the stage and pretend its all about them, the more the smaller parties are edged out.

This is just weird - so the parties most people vote for should be penalised and we should artifically inflate the media presence of less popular parties?
Why?

And all this 'strutting the stage' business is a little bit silly.

And that affects the SNP and PC (etc.), with their large followings in their own countries, just as much as it affects UKIP and the Greens - probably more, actually.

And they will be subsequently represented in their own countries.

And not in other countries where they do not agree with the policies which are not even relevent to them.

Me, personally? I'm talking about a serious democratic deficit inherent in this grandstanding style of politics, affecting three of the four COUNTRIES that make up the UK.

Or to put it another, less misleading way, a democratic process that represents just 16% of the UK electorate and concerning some parties which represent issues specific to those 16%.

[Ashles]

Wrong.

Yes the SNP voters appear massively open to mind changing... :rolleyes:

[Rolfe]

People who vote for the SNP vary widely, just as for other parties. I can envisage few circumstances that would induce me to vote otherwise, but then I've been a member of the party for many years, and held office at branch level. There are many people who might vote SNP who are a lot less committed than I am, and who are very likely to be swayed by these debates.

Rolfe.

[MarkCorrigan]

People who vote for the SNP vary widely, just as for other parties. I can envisage few circumstances that would induce me to vote otherwise, but then I've been a member of the party for many years, and held office at branch level. There are many people who might vote SNP who are a lot less committed than I am, and who are very likely to be swayed by these debates.

Rolfe.

Right...so why should the SNP be allowed on national debates again?

What's wrong with having a Scottish debate that includes the SNP and other Scottish parties (which the BBC is going to do, actually) and a national debate that doesn't give unfair airtime to minority positions?

[Rolfe]

There isn't a solution to this. The "national" debate being aired in Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) is a serious disadvantage to the national parties of these countries. There are also valid objections to not airing that debate in Scotland (and, etc.), if it happens.

We seemed to manage fine without this circus in previous years, and deciding to ape the Americans has opened a can of worms that would have been better kept shut.

Rolfe.

[Undesired Walrus]

I think the SNP and PC could gain more support in England for their causes if they didn't continuously use 'London' as an insult. The PC leader was actually caught saying: "Some of my best friends are English".

Also, why does Salmond keep calling Labour a 'London Party'? It's founder was a Scottish as can be.

[commandlinegamer]

This is just weird - so the parties most people vote for should be penalised and we should artifically inflate the media presence of less popular parties?

Stretching that argument you might say the Lib-dems shouldn't be part of the televised debates as at last count they only had 63 MPs compared to the Tories 193 and Labour 345.

In any case I'm not convinced by the case for Scottish Independence but consider it significant enough that it should be discussed at a UK-wide level.

[MarkCorrigan]

There isn't a solution to this. The "national" debate being aired in Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) is a serious disadvantage to the national parties of these countries. There are also valid objections to not airing that debate in Scotland (and, etc.), if it happens.

We seemed to manage fine without this circus in previous years, and deciding to ape the Americans has opened a can of worms that would have been better kept shut.

Rolfe.

You haven't explained why allowing the leaders of major parties to talk on television is so dreadful.

Yes, you've vaugely flailed that not allowing the SNP onto national debates is bad because it makes it look like there are only three parties (really? How long have the SNP or PC been around again?) and that SNP voters will slip away.

However, when it has been pointed out to you that there will also be debates in Scotland and Wales that will, I assume, include the relevant parties you say....nothing. You seem to ignore it just so you can bleat about how a National program which is directed at 100% of the British voting public doesn't include views which when added together make up 16% of said public. Let's face it, the main three parties are the only ones who are actually able to lead the country as a whole. SNP and PC MP's certainly can get elected in reasonable numbers and can make a difference, but they aren't ever going to be in power. Making the National Debate about the parties that actually have the scope and power to form a government is sensible.

[Undesired Walrus]

We seemed to manage fine without this circus in previous years, and deciding to ape the Americans has opened a can of worms that would have been better kept shut.

Rolfe.

It's practised in many European nations and elsewhere. Their system hasn't suffered.

[Rolfe]

You haven't explained why allowing the leaders of major parties to talk on television is so dreadful.

Yes, you've vaugely flailed that not allowing the SNP onto national debates is bad because it makes it look like there are only three parties (really? How long have the SNP or PC been around again?) and that SNP voters will slip away.


It's all about media presence these days, whether we like it or not.

However, when it has been pointed out to you that there will also be debates in Scotland and Wales that will, I assume, include the relevant parties you say....nothing.


I said, we'll have to wait and see how that works out.

You seem to ignore it just so you can bleat about how a National program which is directed at 100% of the British voting public doesn't include views which when added together make up 16% of said public. Let's face it, the main three parties are the only ones who are actually able to lead the country as a whole. SNP and PC MP's certainly can get elected in reasonable numbers and can make a difference, but they aren't ever going to be in power. Making the National Debate about the parties that actually have the scope and power to form a government is sensible.


And the LibDems are likely to form a government when, exactly?

Rolfe.

[Lothian]

And the LibDems are likely to form a government when, exactly?

Rolfe.6 May 2010*.





*Hung parliament 6/5 with Paddy Power

[Undesired Walrus]

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/ldl21/cameron.jpg

Heh.

[funk de fino]

So when is the cut-off then Funk? When you have constituency seats?

I dont care, see below.

Good point actually. Why can't the English have some say into Scottish independence? Afterall, you aren't wanting independence from a collapsing or corrupt government who are persecuting you, so why on Earth shouldn't we be able to vote on it too?

English people can vote on it too. They have to live in Scotland though.

Bolded - Really? Labour are not collapsing or Parliament is not corrupt?

True, but the SNP seem to have a serious problem with the English and ignore Wales and Northern Ireland unless it's convenient, much like PC (but with a focus on Wales, obviously).

Serious problem? With people who try and deny the people of Scotland a free vote on independence? Why wouldnt they have a problem?

I didn't say in the UK election - they won seats in the European Parliament - although in the UK election they took almost 200,000 votes.

In England their voice and presence is greater than the SNP.

Then your claim about seats was an irrelevance to this discussion. Their presence in England is also twice as large as it is in Scotland. That should tell you something.

[Undesired Walrus]

And the LibDems are likely to form a government when, exactly?

Rolfe.

Why do you think the leader of the Liberal Democrats gets two guaranteed questions at PMQ's? It's not just a media invention this third-party showing you know.

[funk de fino]

Why do you think the leader of the Liberal Democrats gets two guaranteed questions at PMQ's? It's not just a media invention this third-party showing you know.

So the 4th party in Scotland get no airtime for the Scottish debates then?

I think thats fair.

[Fiona]

People who vote for the SNP vary widely, just as for other parties. I can envisage few circumstances that would induce me to vote otherwise, but then I've been a member of the party for many years, and held office at branch level. There are many people who might vote SNP who are a lot less committed than I am, and who are very likely to be swayed by these debates.

Rolfe.

Well if it is any consolation, it is not going to influence my vote at all

[Rolfe]

Well if it is any consolation, it is not going to influence my vote at all


Nor mine, but I'd be surprised if it didn't influence some votes. All the current speculation about it causing a surge in LibDem votes certainly points up the potential for such exposure to boost the standing of a party previously seen as an outsider. Mind you, if it does anything, it's likely to be to boost the chances of a hung parliament.

Rolfe.

[MarkCorrigan]

So the 4th party in Scotland get no airtime for the Scottish debates then?

I think thats fair.

Except that this presumably means the Tories, right? Well, that's not really viable, since they will still hold a significantly larger number of seats in the UK government overall, meaning that they will affect Scotland even if they don't make much progress in Scottish seats.

The SNP pretty much only affects Scotland (for now, of course), whereas the "Big Three" affect everywhere.

[funk de fino]

Except that this presumably means the Tories, right? Well, that's not really viable, since they will still hold a significantly larger number of seats in the UK government overall, meaning that they will affect Scotland even if they don't make much progress in Scottish seats.

So what? It's limited to 3 for the "national" debate. It should be limited to 3 for the Scottish ones.

The SNP pretty much only affects Scotland (for now, of course), whereas the "Big Three" affect everywhere.

Yes indeed, the Tories can affect the whole of Scotland (even though they get fanny adam MP's up here) if they win the election and form a govt. Thats why we should get a chance to make a change. They are irrelevant to the Scottish electorate.

Some people want their cake and eat it eh?

[Fiona]

It does make sense to exclude the tories in the scottish debate: they really are an irrelvance here

[Rolfe]

Except that this presumably means the Tories, right? Well, that's not really viable, since they will still hold a significantly larger number of seats in the UK government overall, meaning that they will affect Scotland even if they don't make much progress in Scottish seats.

The SNP pretty much only affects Scotland (for now, of course), whereas the "Big Three" affect everywhere.


Move the goal posts much?

So, the Tories get to be in a Scottish debate (in your version) because English votes for the Tories would affect Scotland.

How do Scottish votes for the SNP not affect England, then? At the very least, it's perfectly possible that an SNP/PC bloc could hold the balance of power to some extent. With a larger vote, certainly Darat seems to think Scottish independence would impact on England.

The Scots got to watch the Englishe debate(s) if they wanted to. The Conservatives got plenty exposure there, quite enough really. If the SNP are to be excluded from nominally UK debates, then by the same token the Conservatives should be excluded from Scottish debates.

Rolfe.

[funk de fino]

If Iain Gray is the speaker in the Scottish ones then Labour are screwed. The man is an imbecile. He comes across worse than Brown.

[Architect]

It does make sense to exclude the tories in the scottish debate: they really are an irrelvance here

Actually, that's a very valid point.

In Scotland, mes amis anglais, there are two main political parties: the SNP and Labour. The Lib-Dems are the potential coalition party and hence arguably have a voice. Let's apply your rules: let's bin the Tories. They're irrelevant. They'll never get more than a coupe of seats.

After all, why should a minority be able to dictate a voice in these public debates?

[Architect]

However, when it has been pointed out to you that there will also be debates in Scotland and Wales that will, I assume, include the relevant parties you say....nothing. You seem to ignore it just so you can bleat about how a National program which is directed at 100% of the British voting public doesn't include views which when added together make up 16% of said public. Let's face it, the main three parties are the only ones who are actually able to lead the country as a whole. SNP and PC MP's certainly can get elected in reasonable numbers and can make a difference, but they aren't ever going to be in power. Making the National Debate about the parties that actually have the scope and power to form a government is sensible.

Let me be honest: I welcome this kind of view.

No, really, I do.

Because if there's one thing guaranteed to produce Scottish independence it's this kind of "English Raj", bugger all you damned Celts, there's only 10m of you anyway, viewpoint.

Go, Tories, Go!

[Undesired Walrus]

By the way, does Britain really have worse Cancer survival rates than Bulgaria? Fact Check please.

[MarkCorrigan]

Let me be honest: I welcome this kind of view.

No, really, I do.

Because if there's one thing guaranteed to produce Scottish independence it's this kind of "English Raj", bugger all you damned Celts, there's only 10m of you anyway, viewpoint.

Go, Tories, Go!

You genuinely think that's how I see it? An English Raj?

Good grief, I'm not saying that you're an irrelevance to the UK at all, I was making the point that what Rolfe said about the televised debate was stupid because Scotland is small. I wasn't saying that the SNP is worthless, nor do I think that minority views should be ignored. Personally I would be sad to lose Scotland from the Union, but if it doesn't screw us all up, and you all really want it, go for it. I know it's disheartening that Westminster won't give you what you want, and I think your being pissed off about that is fair enough.

That being said, the inclusion of a party with no chance of gaining seats outside a very small area and with little influence as of now on national politics into a national debate is ridiculous, whereas inclusion of a party who do not do well within the area but have a high chance of getting some control over it is an obvious choice to stand up in a local debate for that area.

[Architect]

No, I think you just proved the point. Again.

[Rolfe]

QED.

Rolfe.

[Lothian]

By the way, does Britain really have worse Cancer survival rates than Bulgaria? Fact Check please.I wondered that. Not just whether it was true but why Bulgaria? Anyway a quick google search shows a couple of recent reports.

This one (http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CONCORD.pdf) by London University (School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) was done in 2008. The UK is fairly low down on the list but no sign of Bulgaria.

The Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6765210/Britain-has-among-worst-cancer-survival-rates-in-developed-world.html) in 2009 referred to a report by the Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development however I think you need to pay for the full version (http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085214_1_1_1_1,00.html). There is a trial version you can try.

[Undesired Walrus]

Does Cameron make people out of thin air? (http://politicalscrapbook.net/2010/04/david-camerons-imaginary-friends/)

Funny. Hadn't noticed that before.

[Darat]

The SNP and other such parties are not nationwide parties, if they were then there would be a strong argument that they should be represented even if there percentage of the overall vote was as low as it is today. When the likes of the SNP are interested in forming the next UK government, e.g have candidates throughout the country and want to represent non-Scottish resident (Welsh/N.Irish and so on) constituents then I would say they should be (because of their position in the devolved assembles/parliaments) be part of the national debate - but as long as they remain regional parties then I can't see why they would expect to be part of a national debate.

[Darat]

Does people make people out of thin air? (http://politicalscrapbook.net/2010/04/david-camerons-imaginary-friends/)

Funny. Hadn't noticed that before.

Follows on from Enoch Powell.

[zooterkin]

The SNP have english MP's.
Really?

[funk de fino]

The SNP and other such parties are not nationwide parties, if they were then there would be a strong argument that they should be represented even if there percentage of the overall vote was as low as it is today. When the likes of the SNP are interested in forming the next UK government, e.g have candidates throughout the country and want to represent non-Scottish resident (Welsh/N.Irish and so on) constituents then I would say they should be (because of their position in the devolved assembles/parliaments) be part of the national debate - but as long as they remain regional parties then I can't see why they would expect to be part of a national debate.

I, for one, have never though Salmond should go near this national debate. The Tories should not get near the Scottish one either.

[funk de fino]

Really?

Technically I should clarify that it is MSP's. I believe there are English candidates for the General election also.

[zooterkin]

Have there been any figures on whether there was any difference in how the three candidates were perceived by people watching the debate on TV or listening on the radio (as there was in the Nixon/Kennedy debate 50 years ago)?

[Agatha]

There has been a Sun/YouGov poll which was taken on Friday putting support at: Tory 33%, (down 4%) LibDem 30% (up 8%) Labour 28% (down 3%). The BBC says Applying the figures [...] to the BBC News website's election seat calculator, results in the following: Labour 276 seats; Conservatives 245 seats; Lib Dems 100 seats; Others 29 seats.

This is the first national poll sampled after Thursday's debate. Clearly the findings, if confirmed by the polls expected on Sunday, are important. It is worth pointing out that the two point difference between the Liberal Democrats and Labour is within normal sampling error, so it does not mean Labour is definitively in third place.

Although the headline focus may be on the Liberal Democrats appearing ahead of Labour we should not ignore the poll's suggestion that the Conservative fall in support is bigger than Labour's.

Perhaps it is best to consider this single poll as an immediate referendum on Thursday night's debate, until we have evidence, if any, that it represents the settled will of British voters.

It will be interesting to see if Sunday's polls replicate this fall in Tory and Lab support and the jump in Lib Dem support.

[Undesired Walrus]

Have there been any figures on whether there was any difference in how the three candidates were perceived by people watching the debate on TV or listening on the radio (as there was in the Nixon/Kennedy debate 50 years ago)?

I was thinking of doing that for the next debate. Want to watch it on TV and see how we differ?

[Architect]

Let me approach this from a slightly different angle.

In Scotland, the national government is the SNP and they hope to do well at the Westminster (i.e. UK) elections in order to help further their cause.

Now, the SNP have pointed out that their not being part of the UK debate results in lesser press coverage. In short, the inevitable media furore concentrates on the three "UK" parties.

So the SNP is disadvantaged on its home turf. It's done very subtly, and very persuasively, but it's done.

There are a number of solutions to this, the most oft-voiced (by the BBC) version of which is supplementary debates in Scotland - or Wales, as the case may be - with the "local" (i.e. home nation) parties. It's not a daft idea.

If....

If you blank out all the coverage of Lab/Lib/Cons arising from what is, essentially, an English debate.

Yes, that's right - an English debate. Because - and this may come as news to you, mes amis anglais, but about 75% of the stuff we wade through under the banner of "national" (i.e. UK) news is nothing of the sort. It's English news. It's English educational policy. It's English healthcare policy.

Roll on one Europe of many peoples, not one UK of the English peoples.

[Agatha]

Play Dave Cameron roulette! http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

[andyandy]

Play Dave Cameron roulette! http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php


"Last week, I met a gay lady, who told me that the European Human Rights Act got a free house from the council."

:D

[Professor Yaffle]

"Last week, I met a white working-class fishmonger, who told me that teenagers high on meow meow had been shouting at buses on the high street."


:D

[andyandy]

To prevent this thread becoming another Scotish Independence thread, how about it's split?

Then this one can go back to being about the debates?

So, good old Clegg eh? :)

[Undesired Walrus]

I'll participate Andy. Perhaps (If you felt the same way as most of the nation) you could explain to me what was so good about Clegg? I honestly felt throughout the debate he was doing dreadfully, but I seem to be in the minority. Help me out?

And 10 Million viewers, that's not too bad (Even if 17 Million watched Bradley fall to his death in Eastenders).

[Rat]

I think what he did was come across as honest and confident. As far as I can tell, people were impressed with both that and the fact that he was neither Cameron nor Brown.

[Undesired Walrus]

I always thought he'd come across as the dull John Edwards character, the whimsy, 'what's-all-this-fighting-going-to-achieve' third candidate stuck between the two big dogs. Obviously not.

Anyway, I suppose I've slightly warmed to the guy after realising he speaks five languages and is an Atheist (Although it is baffling he seems to want to raise his kids Catholic).

The result I'd prefer now is a hung parliament, and that seems more and more likely these days. I just don't see how a Lib-Lab pact can command support if they both come behind the Tories. Clegg somewhat shot himself in the foot by saying he'd support the party with the largest mandate, and seeing how the Libs are all about proportionality, it would be baffling if they joined up with the party with more seats (Labour) and not the one with more votes (Tories). I'd settle for Cable as Chancellor, although I am concerned that their tax policy doesn't appear to help those at the lower end of the income scale. I'm also curious at how they propose to save 190Million (Or something like that) a year on 'prison reform'.

I'm not all that dedicated to Labour getting a fourth, although I am desperate to see Rushanara Ali become elected Labour MP for Bethnal Green. A real politician of the future there. I donated 50 quid this morning to her campaign.

Lib-Lab? Anything to deny the Tories getting back into No10 and Osborne into No11. Did anyone read Cameron's article in The Guardian stressing that the Tories were the 'real radicals'? Hilarious stuff. Perhaps if you put the three-inch bullet-proof blinders on, you can see a party commited to shelving inheritance tax for the super rich as 'radical progressives'.

BTW, I'm finding the Tory attacks on the Lib Dems transparently desperate. 'A vote for the Euro Super-state?'. The hypocrisy, given that Cameron warned voters to choose hope over fear at the end of the debate, is incredible.

[MarkCorrigan]

Clegg somewhat shot himself in the foot by saying he'd support the party with the largest mandate, and seeing how the Libs are all about proportionality, it would be baffling if they joined up with the party with more seats (Labour) and not the one with more votes (Tories).

They aren't a single-issue party, so no, it's not surprising.

[funk de fino]

Lib-Lab? Anything to deny the Tories getting back into No10 and Osborne into No11.

I'd settle for that.

[andyandy]

I'll participate Andy. Perhaps (If you felt the same way as most of the nation) you could explain to me what was so good about Clegg? I honestly felt throughout the debate he was doing dreadfully, but I seem to be in the minority. Help me out?


He "won" because:

1) he was starting from such a low base, that anything other than completely crashing and burning would have been a success. We have such a politically disingaged general population I doubt Clegg would have even had 30% recognition prior to the debates

2) he wasn't either cameron or brown

3) he was able to actually come across as more honest than the other two - the old Vince Cable trick of appearing to rise above punch and judy politics to tell it like it is.

4) he had no pressure on him - so was noticeably more relaxed than Cameron. People like that.

5) Cameron did so badly. He looked uncomfortable, sweaty and over-rehearsed. Given that people had quite high expectations of his performance (he is after all quite a good performer in the Commons) this exacerbated the contrast between him and Clegg

6) he actually landed a few punches - scrapping trident appeals to a big chunk of the disenfranchised liberal left, playing to the zeitgeist of voter political apathy post-expenses scandal works well for a third party, promising to rise above party politics to create a fair elderly care system sounded statesmanlike....

Basically, i think if you'd expected him to do well, he wouldn't have "won" - actually there wasn't that much between them in terms of substance. But TV debates are all about style and perception....

[Rat]

He "won" because:
...
2) he wasn't either cameron or brown

I'd recommend capitalising your proper nouns. I suspect, knowing the general public, that he would be less popular if he were brown, but I hope that's not what you meant.

[Undesired Walrus]

They aren't a single-issue party, so no, it's not surprising.

They're not, but the fallout from the press would be huge. A party which has made a promise on PR a litmus test for any possible coalition going against proportionality in order to form one?

[andyandy]

I'd recommend capitalising your proper nouns. I suspect, knowing the general public, that he would be less popular if he were brown, but I hope that's not what you meant.

:D

[funk de fino]

He "won" because:

1) he was starting from such a low base, that anything other than completely crashing and burning would have been a success. We have such a politically disingaged general population I doubt Clegg would have even had 30% recognition prior to the debates

2) he wasn't either cameron or brown

3) he was able to actually come across as more honest than the other two - the old Vince Cable trick of appearing to rise above punch and judy politics to tell it like it is.

4) he had no pressure on him - so was noticeably more relaxed than Cameron. People like that.

5) Cameron did so badly. He looked uncomfortable, sweaty and over-rehearsed. Given that people had quite high expectations of his performance (he is after all quite a good performer in the Commons) this exacerbated the contrast between him and Clegg

6) he actually landed a few punches - scrapping trident appeals to a big chunk of the disenfranchised liberal left, playing to the zeitgeist of voter political apathy post-expenses scandal works well for a third party, promising to rise above party politics to create a fair elderly care system sounded statesmanlike....

Basically, i think if you'd expected him to do well, he wouldn't have "won" - actually there wasn't that much between them in terms of substance. But TV debates are all about style and perception....

Having not seen it, I found it surprising he came across so well as I have not been impressed with his showings in the Commons up to now. I wonder where they would be now if Paddy had been given this chance a few years ago?

[andyandy]

The debates are really a massive unknown in terms of imapct - the key thing is momentum - we are now in an age of mass media and groundswell mobilisation. It's the kind of mobilisation that can persuade hundreds of thousands of people to buy a RATM single just to send a message "to the man". I think this kind of thing indicates that the game has changed - you can harness momentum for a movement like never before.

Indeed, i would consider voting Lib dem now. Why? Well, as a tactical vote it only makes sense if it has the potential to have a genuine impact. Before, with no chance of a tactical impact (in my constituency at least) i may as well have voted for the party that best represents my beliefs (the greens). And the Lib dems do agree with my beliefs enough on some important issues (trident, a roll back of labour's assault on civil liberties etc) for it to be a positive rather than negative vote....

But I'll wait to see how the next few weeks play out :)

[Rolfe]

They're not, but the fallout from the press would be huge. A party which has made a promise on PR a litmus test for any possible coalition going against proportionality in order to form one?


My experience of the LibDems leads me to expect hypocrisy and expediency in equal measure, so I wouldn't be wildly surprised by any such move.

Rolfe.

[andyandy]

Having not seen it, I found it surprising he came across so well as I have not been impressed with his showings in the Commons up to now. I wonder where they would be now if Paddy had been given this chance a few years ago?

Both Paddy and Kennedy would have shone in this format. Part of the problem for the Lib Dems is the rudeness in the commons whenever they are talking - with everyone making a conscious decision to talk in the background. The Speaker should stop it - but seem unbothered by it. As a result Lib dem leaders always struggle to come across well in the house....

[Undesired Walrus]

There was a funny twitter post reported in the Observor today: "The Lib Dems know why we wouldn't need Trident if they got into power, the Island of Britain would be protected by a wall of self-righteousness'.

[Rat]

My experience of the LibDems leads me to expect hypocrisy and expediency in equal measure, so I wouldn't be wildly surprised by any such move.

Rolfe.
Only an active supported of a political party could say this as if it applied to only one (other) party.

[Rolfe]

Well, of course it doesn't. But my observations of the LibDems over the years have spotted it in suprisingly large measure in that particular party.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

I think what he did was come across as honest and confident. As far as I can tell, people were impressed with both that and the fact that he was neither Cameron nor Brown.

It is interesting, I only watched the first question and then I listened to it via my gnome in another room and to me Clegg did not come across particularly better than the other two, but my other half who watched the debate thought that he came across much better than the other two.

Personally I think the "bounce" in opinion polls is simply from his exposure and the fact he isn't Cameron or Brown, he's the new face when most folks have only really seen Brown & Cameron and I suspect are fed up with both of them rabbiting on!

What's the betting that in the next debate there won't be any more of the "I agree with Nick" comments from Cameron or Brown?

[zooterkin]

It is interesting, I only watched the first question and then I listened to it via my gnome in another room and to me Clegg did not come across particularly better than the other two, but my other half who watched the debate thought that he came across much better than the other two.
That's exactly the effect I wondered about, earlier, but haven't seen any polls which broke down the results based on whether people watched or only listened to the debate.


What's the betting that in the next debate there won't be any more of the "I agree with Nick" comments from Cameron or Brown?

There was a documentary last week about the history of television debates, and I'm surprised they were making this mistake as it's one of the things one of the US presidents did (I think it was Gerald Ford, when debating with Jimmy Carter, but could have misremembered), which made it look as though he was a follower, not a leader.

(ETA: That programme did have an explanation of why Nixon looked so bad on screen; he was recovering from an infected wound to his knee (which he also knocked again on the way into the studio), hence the sweating and general pallor, and also refused make-up as he heard Kennedy decline the offer (but Kennedy then got made-up anyway).)

[Fiona]

I have the impression that for now the effect of boosting interest in the lib dems is being sustained. Whether it will survive the next two debates is moot. My own feeling is that it will. I think that a lot of people are thoroughly disgusted with their "own" party, whether that be labour or tory: many were finding it hard to contemplate voting at all. This debate has given them some possible alternative and it may be it was enough to give them the notion they might as well try lib dem, because the other two parties are very unpopular and so a vote for lib dem might actually count this time.

Interesting at any rate ...

[andyandy]

I have the impression that for now the effect of boosting interest in the lib dems is being sustained. Whether it will survive the next two debates is moot. My own feeling is that it will. I think that a lot of people are thoroughly disgusted with their "own" party, whether that be labour or tory: many were finding it hard to contemplate voting at all. This debate has given them some possible alternative and it may be it was enough to give them the notion they might as well try lib dem, because the other two parties are very unpopular and so a vote for lib dem might actually count this time.

Interesting at any rate ...

I think it'll survive the second debate because it's on sky....how many viewers are they going to get for that? 3-5 million absolute tops. The BBC debate on the economy will be interesting - The Great Leader will probably do quite well, and the Lib Dem's somewhat left-wing economic policy might not go down too well with middle england....

[Professor Yaffle]

I think it'll survive the second debate because it's on sky....how many viewers are they going to get for that? 3-5 million absolute tops. The BBC debate on the economy will be interesting - The Great Leader will probably do quite well, and the Lib Dem's somewhat left-wing economic policy might not go down too well with middle england....

Wasn't Nick Clegg a member of the Orange Group, which is much more economically right wing? I don't know if this is the case, but I have seen it asserted a lot in the comments sections of a lot of blogs recently.

[Fiona]

Cable pledged to cut public spending by more than either of the other two parties: so hardly left wing economic policy

[andyandy]

Wasn't Nick Clegg a member of the Orange Group, which is much more economically right wing? I don't know if this is the case, but I have seen it asserted a lot in the comments sections of a lot of blogs recently.

Cable pledged to cut public spending by more than either of the other two parties: so hardly left wing economic policy

you might be right, the lib dem's economic policy has largely passed me by :)

I think they've come out as tougher on the banks than the other parties. re public sector cuts - the difference between them and lab/con is that they at least made an effort in the budget to provide some figures...i would imagine they'd cut less than the tories in actuality...but who knows? Liberal Dems are small state at heart....

[Gaspode]

Discussion on Scottish independence split to new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=173510).

[Darat]

I have the impression that for now the effect of boosting interest in the lib dems is being sustained. Whether it will survive the next two debates is moot. My own feeling is that it will. I think that a lot of people are thoroughly disgusted with their "own" party, whether that be labour or tory: many were finding it hard to contemplate voting at all. This debate has given them some possible alternative and it may be it was enough to give them the notion they might as well try lib dem, because the other two parties are very unpopular and so a vote for lib dem might actually count this time.

Interesting at any rate ...

Totally agree.

[Undesired Walrus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s61j8/b00s61gy/The_Daily_Politics_2010_Election_Debates_The_Forei gn_Affairs_Debate/

Foriegn affairs debate. I thought Miliband thrashed Hague, but I seem to have a habit of misreading the victor. He really trumps him on the China gaffe.

[Undesired Walrus]

The full list of Cabinet debates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8579930.stm

Oddly enough, the Greens (Environment debate), the SNP (Business debate) and UKIP (Immigration) candidates will be popping up at irregular intervals.

[funk de fino]

The full list of Cabinet debates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8579930.stm

Oddly enough, the Greens (Environment debate), the SNP (Business debate) and UKIP (Immigration) candidates will be popping up at irregular intervals.

Jesus, poor Swinney got the short straw there. He'll get eaten by that mob.

[Undesired Walrus]

Murdered by the stare of Mandelson.

[andyandy]

I've just put a bet on one of the more important things to be decided at tonight's debate:

"Who's going to be first to mention their wife?"


I've gone for Grim Gordo at 15/8 - he's going to bring in £11.50 if he comes good.....:)

[Darat]

I don't bet but I'll say Nick Clegg - after all isn't foreign affairs and his wife is Spanish. :)

[Darat]

Not going to be online while the debate is on but it should be fun - demonstrations outside the venue (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/The-Sky-News-Leaders-Debate-Gordon-Brown-David-Cameron-And-Nick-Clegg-Go-Head-To-Head-In-Bristol/Article/201004415613504?lpos=Politics_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15613504_The_Sky_News_Leaders_Debate%3 A_Gordon_Brown%2C_David_Cameron_And_Nick_Clegg_Go_ Head-To-Head_In_Bristol)!

[Ashles]

I'm going with David Cameron mentioning Sam Cam - 22 mins.

[Ashles]

Just before the debates start, a bit of light relief:

Strangest election story of the day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8637473.stm)

[andyandy]

I don't bet but I'll say Nick Clegg - after all isn't foreign affairs and his wife is Spanish. :)

damn it! It's that kind of insider knowledge i'm missing :D

[andyandy]

Just before the debates start, a bit of light relief:

Strangest election story of the day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8637473.stm)

Lamest "it wasn't me, sir" excuse ever.....

In a statement, BNP leader Nick Griffin said the jar had "apparently" been inserted by "one of the people to whom we had given the broadcast to review".

He added that it was not included in the official version of the broadcast.

However, Mr Griffin went on to say that the Marmite jar had been added in reaction to a recent advertising campaign for Marmite which he said mocked the BNP.

In the Marmite campaign two spoof political parties, the Love Party and the Hate Party, compete in a mock election.

The BNP claims the Hate Party was "clearly based" on itself.

"Quite simply, if you start a spoof, you should expect to get spoofed," added Mr Griffin.

"Although we are not responsible for whoever it was who inserted the Marmite jars into the internet version of the broadcast, we do see the amusing side."


God, he is a tool.

[Ashles]

Why does David Cameron's face look airbrushed even on live TV?

Nick Clegg ended up getting the middle spot and last intro speech - seems like some good luck fo him.

(Wish they'd stop it with the colour coded ties though)

[ArcturusA]

Fair opening speeches from Brown and Clegg. Didn't think much of Cameron's but then that doesn't surprise me.

[Agatha]

Just before the debates start, a bit of light relief:

Strangest election story of the day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8637473.stm) I put that on the other thread earlier! Excellent story.

Does Cameron look better with a moustache....

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/rosysparkle/Camerontache.jpg

:D

And they're off. Cameron in the purple tie, Clegg back in an orange tie, and Brown sporting the traditional Labour red.

[ArcturusA]

What a horribly loaded first question. Tackling EU interference? That assumes interference exists, which is pretty subjective.

[Ashles]

So all three are pro-Europe, but Tories a bit less so.

Looks like they are all going to kick the banks whenever possible.

[Ashles]

What a horribly loaded first question. Tackling EU interference? That assumes interference exists, which is pretty subjective.


It seems that is assumed by so many of the 'men on the street'.

I'm surprised the questioner didn't start ranting about stright bananas.

[Ashles]

Clegg's got some confidence tonight.

David Cameron should make some headway with this - a surprising amount of peole want Britain to be 'out of Europe' (despite this being impractical).

Cool Nick Clegg just branded lots of people a 'Bunch of nutters' including Global Warming deniers.

[ArcturusA]

Another rubbish question.

Where are they getting these people?

How can you answer a hypothetical like that? Far too many ifs and buts to make any answer to the actual question useful.

[Ashles]

Another rubbish question.

Did seem a bit weird.

"Will you help other countries fight terrorism abroad?"

Uh, yes, of course.

[Agatha]

It's more soundbite than substance tonight.

[Delscottio]

This is all abit sterile and "samey" from all 3.

I get the impression Brown wants to launch into raised voice rhetoric but can't pick his moment.

[Ashles]

That was a bit lame:

David Cameron: I went for a run this morning with someone who had just got back from serving in Afghanistan

That seems irrelevant to the point of ridiculous.
It's not quite the same as visiting the troops in the field.

[andyandy]

It's pretty much a draw at the moment:

Cameron much better than last time (not difficult) - he seems to have sorted out his nervous sweats

Clegg good

Broon - able to sound important by referencing all the secret intel reports and government leaders he's met....

I don't understand why no-one attacked Broon over Iraq when iraq came up - surely an open goal missed? You're standing next to the guy at the very fulcrum of governemt whilst we committed to it! Put the boot in.....

Trident - i wonder how that will play with the electorate?

[Ashles]

This is all abit sterile and "samey" from all 3.

I get the impression Brown wants to launch into raised voice rhetoric but can't pick his moment.

Ooh, he decided that was the moment.

Even hit his mike. :)

[andyandy]

still no mention of wives....though broon's reference to his kids got a laugh.

[Delscottio]

Getting a bit more interesting about Trident, oh they've moved on.

[Fiona]

what have you done personally for climate change? what kind of question is that?

[Ashles]

Oh Jesus, crappest question yet.

Who cares what they are personally doing for climate change.

Isn't what they plan for the country a little more relevant? What a waste of a question.

[ArcturusA]

Ah, a climate change question.

But a rubbish one.

"Personally?" I don't care about that. I want to know what they will do nationally!

[Ashles]

Well it seems like they all sensibly just decided to answer the question about national issues.

In fact it looks like Gordon Brown isn't even dignifying her question with a personal answer.

Gordon has landed a couple of good blows against the other two. I didn't know Clegg was anti-nuclear... hmm...

[andyandy]

Oh Jesus, crappest question yet.

Who cares what they are personally doing for climate change.

Isn't what they plan for the country a little more relevant? What a waste of a question.

next question from Holly (aged 7)

"How will we create world peace?"

[Ashles]

next question from Holly (aged 7)

"How will we create world peace?"

You actually did just make me spit a little on my screen laughing. :)

[Fiona]

"do you want to work with children if you win?"

[Ashles]

I think, unexpectedly, Gordon Brown won the environmental question round.

ETA: Debate's waming up a bit now.

I wonder if one of them might get a bit too carried away tonight.

[Delscottio]

Brown putting the boot in about renewable energy and nuclear. Cameron seems a bit flakey over this to be honest.

Clegg looks a bit out of his depth over this as well.

[ArcturusA]

Hmm, Clegg's anti-nuclear stance worries me a little too.

At least he isn't against it for ideological reasons.

Still, I think Brown's coming up on top for this energy business.

[ArcturusA]

What's that Cameron? Of course you need regulation and agreements to deal with climate change in Europe!

What, does Cameron think if we just really, really want climate change not to happen, it'll go away?

[Evilgiraffe]

"do you want to work with children if you win?"

Next up, the swimsuit round!

*Shudder*

[Delscottio]

Cameron seems a bit nice but dim here.

[andyandy]

A pope question!

What the feck is that doing in this debate?

[Agatha]

That's a wide ranging, and odd, question about the Pope.

[Delscottio]

Ooh, interesting question........

[Ashles]

I totally did not understand what David Cameron was saying about the Polish president.

It almost sounded like he was saying that the other two parties supported a union which the Polish President was an integral part of and now he's dead 'We'll hear no more of that'

But I must have isunderstood.

[Fiona]

wife mention!!

[andyandy]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Clegg dropped the wife-bomb

There's £10 Gordon's cost me. Thanks for nothing labour :D

[Agatha]

Yup, Cleggy mentions the wife first.

[Ashles]

Well Clegg's been quite clear there about his atheism.

Thank goodness he has a Catholic wife so he can 'appreciate the issues'.

It's a tricky area for him.

Brown seems much more confident in this debate.

ETA: Brown is trying to smile - it looks a bit like Arnie trying to learn to smile in Terminator 2

[geni]

Cameron is being a bad catholic.

[Ashles]

wife mention!!

lol. :)

[Agatha]

Blimey, Cameron sounded absolutely out of his depth there.

[Fiona]

Listen to the radio if it bothers you :)

[ArcturusA]

Clegg seems to be struggling with this question a bit. It's almost like he wants to disagree a lot more strongly than he is, but is trying to hold back.

[Ashles]

Well it's official - all three major British political parties think the Pope is a twat.

[geni]

Brown seems much more confident in this debate.


Well clegg and cameron are mostly gunning for each other. Which has made things easyier for him.

[andyandy]

why are we having a 10 minute talk about religion in the foreign policy debate?

[Delscottio]

Did Cameron just say the Pope shouldn't be condemned regarding Homosexuals, abortions etc? The other 2 sort of dodge that bit.

Brown edging this up to now. Up the voice goes...........

[Fiona]

why are we having a 10 minute talk about religion in the foreign policy debate?

The pope is foreign

[Ashles]

Blimey, Cameron sounded absolutely out of his depth there.

He doesn't seem to be having a good night tonight.

What!!!! That finishes the international questions????

What are you personally doing about the environment and what do you think of the Pope?
(Even the questions about Afghanistan and Europe were a bit weird and indirect)

[ArcturusA]

A faith in politics question? Didn't we do this last week?