I am I the only one who finds this insincere TV farce a little unnerving? It seems like 'we can't to the uninterested voters via the press, so we will saturate them via TV' whilst all the time not discussing their actual policies.

I can picture it now "ooh, look at his nice teeth, I'll vote for him"

I am I the only one who finds this insincere TV farce a little unnerving? It seems like 'we can't to the uninterested voters via the press, so we will saturate them via TV' whilst all the time not discussing their actual policies.

I can picture it now "ooh, look at his nice teeth, I'll vote for him"

I don't think you are the only one. I remember reading exactly the same somewhere esle before.

I thought Cameron was the best performer tonight and fully expected him to be heading the polls, but other than the Yougov one which had him marginally ahead, the others have had Brown or even Clegg who I thought was hesitant tonight, ahead, which suggests to me that a lot of people had made up their minds they weren't going to give Cameron a chance however well he did. I think he might be shafted now because if the Conservative polls don't pick up after his confident performance it will just say that there is a groundswell of keep-Dave-out amongst the public.

Despite the Tory press championing him and trying to put the knives in Clegg, Cameron is on the rough end of the public stick with all the internet jokes and posters going round making fun of him, this is the problem with being an Etonian, the majority of the public will be resentful and want to put him down.

Someone said to me the other day she felt like voting Tory because she liked David Cameron. She had no interest in politics, she was obviously taken in by his youth and non-answers.

It's a bit sad that politics has been reduced to some reality tv talent competition-esque circus.

It has always been like that. The largest number of votes ever cast for a winning party in a UK General Election was for John Major's Conservatives in 1992. How many of those voters had scrutinised the Tory manifesto and how many just saw Major against Kinnock and thought it's Major every time.

And Blair, obviously.

The next time we have a TV debate this is what we should do.

[i1. Make it 3.5 hours long, have 1 a week the last 4 weeks up to the election.

2. Make it fair for all parties, have the top 6 Political party leaders in the debate (unfortunately, yes, Nick Griffin too)

3. Make it Similar to question time in that the crowd can boo and clap and shout but unlike question time they all have a fixed amount of time to answer the question which can't be interrupted by the other leaders.[/i

This sterile nonsense is both unfair and soulless and removes the politicians from the public by not allowing [ius[/i to take them to task.

On what basis are you defining the top 6 parties? I could live with a system whereby those who polled 5% in the last General Election had a place at the table, but not based on opinion polls or local election results.

Base it on candidates standing in the majority of each constituency, so no raving looney party but parties like

1. Tories
2. Labour
3. Lib Dems
4. UKIP
5. Greens
6. BNP

maybe more than 6 ?

Is it just me, or does anyone else think when Brown speaks he pulls a face like he's eating a plate of another man's vomit?

This debate at the moment has awaken people to Nick Clegg, people have never really heard of Clegg unless they follow politics but imagine if all the parties have an equal footing on a live TV debate then would Clegg shine as much as he has ?

Who has heard of Caroline Lucas or Lord Malcolm Pearson ?
Yes we know of Nick Griffin but only out of notoriety.

Obviously TANCW and 71 and Sally who follow politics will have heard of these people but the average Joe hasn't and i think this debate would be a lot richer for it.

Yeah, it's a tempting argument, although the likelihood of it turning into even more of a media circus with the Nazis there makes me concerned. If single issue UKIP can be there, should the Nationalists from Scotland and Wales be there?

Don't they have their own Parliaments now, maybe it's time for 'English' politics to come to agenda ?

Let them have their debates in Wales and Scotland and N.I.

I know this is a general election but will you ever see the SNP in a London or Manchester constituency ?

Separate note, if Nasty Nick had the platform i think it would be handing him the rope to hang himself.

Re the SNP and Plaid. I would agree with you IF Labour, Tories and Lib Dems did not stand in Scotland and Wales. As they stand against the Nationalists, they are getting an unfair advantage by having the platform of the Leaders Debate. That is more of an equity issue than the fringe parties such as Nazis, UKIP and Greens.

Only 4 million watched the debate last night, compared to 10 million last week...

The trouble is, it is too controlled and because of that losses a little credibility.
The build up to the first debate was exciting but left me a little flat, i gave the 2nd one a miss (didn't have a choice [size=85the wife[/size) but i wasn't that bothered to be fair.

If Griffin was in there then he would have controlled the agenda, the whole debate would have been about race and immigration. The others would all just be talking about how Griffin was a Nazi and he would be saying they were all the same and he was the only different option. No real issues would be discussed.

I reckon if Caroline Lucas was in there with them that the Greens would shoot up in the polls possibly over 10-12%. She is a very impressive speaker and she would have taken the ground of "offering an alternative" instead of Clegg. She would be untainted by any of the expenses/corrupton and is confident enough to defend herself when the others started trying to make her out as a hippie leftie.

Doesn't the presenter control the agenda though so it wouldn't be allowed to just cater to Griffins forte ?

Sky is a limited platform.

It was on the BBC News Channel as well.

Interesting talking to the "non-politicals" at work today, they have all been watching these debates and say although they don't understand some parts they like them. Also interesting (and not what I expected) that the general consensus is pro-Brown. One woman said "he seems to know what he's talking about, even though I don't know what he means, he looks more like he has a plan than the other two". I expect this is exactly the image Brown is wanting to portray.

Last night's debate however, confirmed for me that I won't be voting for any of them.

Only available via a digital platform. Don't forget this region is ine of two or three that no longer receive analogue terrestial.

Why is that out of interest, is it the Labour jingoism and ineptitude and the Tories lack of substance and the Lib Dems just being the Lib Dems ?

A lighter take on it all: www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 004232669/

A lighter take on it all: www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 004232669/