Clegg won again; Brown far better than last week; Cameron disastrous.

JK2006 wrote:
Clegg won again; Brown far better than last week; Cameron disastrous.

The first time I've seen Brown being a Statesman, other than a slighty depressed politician.

Can anyone explain to me why all news outlets have representatives of the three parties talking about the debates? Totally futile exercise, rather like when they do it after elections.

And very interesting - my gut feeling is that the blatant, obvious bias by the media has been spotted by the vast majority of the public and, indeed, is having the opposite effect as intended. I think the Murdoch/Mail anti Clegg campaign might actually get him elected. It is certainly damaging spoonface.

Most people I spoke to about it thought that Cameron had the edge and that Brown failed miserably. The best they said about Clegg was that he managed to keep pace. I didn't personally watch it.

I'm still not sure who I'll vote for, but I do know I won't be basing it on any debate performances by one individual. I shall study each party's polices and probably make up my mind last minute. The only thing for certain is I won't be voting Labour.

So far the exercise has been a damaging distraction, with the popularity of Clegg (sounding like a Westminster-educated Fozzy Bear) seemingly transcending any reflection on policies or personnel. Imagine if he gets any power: play the Addams Family theme as Uncle Fester ('Dr') Cable, the Human Hamster Sarah Teather, the cubist organism Lembit Opik et al bumble in behind him. Brrr.

The debates have pretty much killed off the rest of the actual substantial campaign. Grass roots activists are just hearing 'we're waiting until all the debates are over'. Novelty is replacing practical wisdom. This is infantilising what is already a dumbed down political process.

I still believe it will be a hung Parliament with one of the two ghastly alternatives as PM, forced to take on Clegg as Deputy PM (good), Cable as Chancellor (good). But the extraordinary possibility is that LibDems will get more votes than either other party with far fewer seats.

In which case Proportional Representation will be forced on the Government - ditto (hopefully) Trident scrapped.

Most of the anticipated benefits of there being no clear majority party have been projected onto a hopelessly outdated, almost Victorian, notion of how the Commons actually works. It's a bit like John Stuart Mill kicking his heels whilst Walter Bagehot rolls his eyes. The Whip system is now so entrenched, so remorseless and so ruthlessly devious we'll get a quite different outcome, practically, than this idealised 'linked arms' set-up that some seem to be expecting. It will be short term, shambolic and damaging.

Well Pru you may be right but I reckon there are only two practical alternatives - a hung Parliament or a LibDem Parliament. Neither Labour nor Tory can win outright now.

I doubt we can be sure at all, given the new factors now in place. The final week could change everything. I'm amazed, however, that the Clegg bashers have stuch with Clegg instead of turning the light on the grotesque ragbag of mediocrities, oddballs and Huhne who are clinging to his coattails - it's such a basic error if they want to score points.

(By the way - Harriet Harman's 'chairing' of the labour press conference at the moment - AWFUL! She radiates fear and paranoia, so she's hardly the ideal person to sit next to Brown! Mandelson is already so clearly starting to wash his hands of the whole campaign he might as well have a basin under that table.)

As someone recently pointed out, a hung Parliament will result in politicians spending so much time doing deals with each other that party ambitions will take precedence over national interest on a larger scale than usual. Very little will be achieved and there will have to be another election to try and restore some stability.

I was interested in Michael Portillo's reminder on This Week that, in the case of a hung Parliament, Her Majesty the Queen can invite any MP to form a government if she believes that they can command sufficient respect among the other MPs. It doesn not have to be a party leader. This further makes the Presidential style debates a meaningless distraction.

Most Britains will not be voting for either Brown, Cameron or Clegg because this is not a Presidential election. We vote for our local candidate and if personality comes into it at all, it is the personality of the local man or woman which matters more than that of his or her party leader.

JK2006 wrote:
Well Pru you may be right but I reckon there are only two practical alternatives - a hung Parliament or a LibDem Parliament. Neither Labour nor Tory can win outright now.

Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Conservatives could not possibly win, but the actual result gave them a 21 seat majority. It ain't over till it's over.

JC wrote:
I was interested in Michael Portillo's reminder on This Week that, in the case of a hung Parliament, Her Majesty the Queen can invite any MP to form a government if she believes that they can command sufficient respect among the other MPs. It doesn not have to be a party leader.

That is constitutionally true - it's a power that enjoyed a revival in the 20th century up to the 1960s thanks, among other things, to the chaos of the Depression with the National Goverment and the Tory Party's then-lack of an offficial means to elect a new leader whilst in Government - but Portillo was surely being knowingly disingenuous, because if the same prerogative was exercised today in that way it would hasten the moves to further diminish or even abolish the power completely.

God we could have Prime Minister Rantzen!

JK2006 wrote:
God we could have Prime Minister Rantzen!

At Number Teeth Downing Street! 'And finally, Cyril...'

hmmmm, the possibility that Sky News broke the rules of the debate in its treatment of Nick Clegg on Thursday....

I think Murdoch sees himself as the unelected Prime Minister of our country.

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/23/nic...egg-ofcom-sky-debate