Economic debate: Choices come to life

I had the TV on, but got fed up with looking at the blokes, so listened to the radio with an occasion pop-in to see who would turn purple first.

Sorry to say that Brown's message that HE had the experience to run the economy left me completely cold.

He said he could run the economy in good times and bad.

I always thought that in the "good times" governments saved a bit to see us through the "bad times". Did I blink at the wrong moment? When did Brown pull back from borrowing when we were supposed to be in the "good times"?

Man's a disaster.

As for the other two...

Jury's out, I guess.

Brown talked about what he wanted to do ..

... but why has much of this been ignored during the last 13 years?

Another 13 years?

Tonight has proved that Browns scare tactics are not working. Cameron was the clear winner, but will he win a majority?? I suspect come polling day Lib Dem numbers won't hold up, and Cameron will easily end up with a workable majority, that gives him the mandate to make the public sector savings we need.

Interesting claims that capital expenditure on new schools could be reduced... aren't most of those under PFI?
i.e. not paid for up front and tied into ongoing expenditure.


Isn't inheritance tax double taxation anyway? - after all when the income is first earned its taxed.
(although an overhaul of the entire tax system would seem desirable, just not quite as the LibDems want it).

These debates have turned what should have been a test match into a 20-20 slog and a beauty pageant. All they needed was some dancing girls and loud music to complete the scenario.

Nick Clegg was allowed to make outrageous claims without any difficulty, hitting sixes over the boundary, from the slow bowling of David Cameron and Gordon Brown.

Cameron and Clegg debated, Brown chanted mantras. Nuff said!

Far better performance from Cameron tonight. Hopefully not good enough to see him win an outright majority. Amazed by Brown's resilience. Given the circumstances his performance was excellent. Clegg really came across as having run out of steam. Cameron knocked him around a bit tonight which was probably over due.
The TV debates are now hopefully a permanent fixture but I would say that at 90 minutes they are too long. Overall though they improve the electoral process and are a welcome addition.

Brown looked a beaten man, Cameron certainly looked well on the way to sealing the deal. Clegg was out of depth, coming up with ficticious figures. No surprise who I'll be voting for on my postal vote tomorrow. I just hope it doesn't go missing Glenrothes style.

Clegg came under a huge amount of scrutiny this evening, and all his wriggling did not wash according to the opinion polls. As for Brown, he rounded his usual third, which only cements his failure and description as the worst pm in history. Cameron came across as the statesman, the prime minister in waiting, we can finally see the breathing space opening up.

Bring on polling day, the conservative majority is nigh!

I don't like these debates, I find them incredibly hard to follow.

There simply isn't enough time for focus or follow-up on individual points or policies.

'the immorality of their proposals to cut inheritance tax'

paid for by taxing non-doms

'while limiting tax credits'

but only on the wealthy.

He tried his best to look angry bless him, but he simply looked tired and desperate.

When Nick Clegg was banging on about getting politicians to work together in addressing the difficult times ahead, all I could think about was that he was promoting the idea of indecision and the observation by Charles Dunstone (founder of Carphone Warehouse) that nobody had ever built a statue of a committee.

Polls have got all 3 debates right:

Brown last in all 3
Clegg 1st in first debate, 2nd in last debate
Cameron 2nd in first debate, 1st in last debate.

Cameron performed well tonight, though still not at his best. Clearly the winner, but not by the huge margin one poll suggests. Displayed gravitas but still pulling his punches. I guess time wil telll if this was the right tactic.

Clegg was OK, but he is still playing the same record and people are starting to get fed up. He did not defend his position on amnesty for illegal immigrants or entering the Euro very well at all. His response on the Euro ("not me guv, never") was dishonest.

Brown did OK, but has proved to be the liability in this election that many of his colleagues feared he would be. Fortune favours the brave, but he bottled an early election and the party bottled their chance of getting rid of him. They will both get what they deserve. It was toe-curling to watch Mandy & Campbell proclaiming him the winner. How stupid do they think we are?

I was also intrigued by Brown's fluffy definition of ordinary people. If he is taxing you, then £20,000 income makes you fair game for NI. If others are cutting tax credits, then £50,000 income makes you poor. Hmm!

Ultimately, these debates have exposed Brown's lack of ideas and negativity. He uses his closing speech to attack others because he has no vision of his own and nothing to offer. I dare see he will flat-line at 25% in the polls until next Thursday, behind the Liberals, assuming his minders prevent him from abusing any more voters.

'but turned his real fire on Nick Clegg - on his party's policies on immigration, the euro and welfare reform'

and Nick Clegg's response amounted to asking DC what the Tory cap on non-EU immigration would be. Nick, I don't really care whether it's 20,000 or 25,000 just as long as it isn't the 200,000 per annum we've had to endure under New Labour or the 300,000 per annum we'd have to endure if your amnesty ever saw the light of day.

4. At 00:11am on 30 Apr 2010, Reaper_of_Souls wrote:

Isn't inheritance tax double taxation anyway? - after all when the income is first earned its taxed.

------

What isn't clear to me is how it's the case that the inheritance tax threshold rise would affect only the 3000 richest estates in Britain, as GB and NC keep telling us. From what I understand in the tax guidelines (which I just read to double check) any couple with a house valued at more than £650,000 would - provided they had paid off their mortgage - have to pay inheritance tax. Given the massive inflation in house prices over the last 15 years, surely that includes a lot more than 3000 (pairs of) people...

How absent was real debate at all. Instead of tackling the economic crisis, Dave and Nick opted to make hollow calls for a bright future but gave no tips on how to overcome current and pressing problems. Gordon Brown failed to score (fear to be perceived as a bully?), losing a good opportunity to lesson the two schoolboys on how to deal with tough problems and to run a country in full responsibility. So bad for its people.

Best line of the night from David Cameron -

'You sometimes wonder if Gordon Brown knows which country he is Prime Minister of'

Politics is a sad game, even for the electorate. There is a group of us who follows a political party because that is who their parents voted for. There is another group who vote according to social status. While there is another group who will believe the media and vote accordingly. They and floating voters are more or less related as are those that protest vote.

we have listened to three politicians for three weeks saying why we should allow them to be Prime Minister. Much like when we were at school and had to vote for a class/year rep for the school committee. did we then and do we now vote for the betterment of whatever society or do we vote for who is most popular?

We are being told by the Tories that a hung parliament would not be beneficial for the UK. We have Mr Brown scared that if we had a hung parliament the Lib Dems and tories would conspire against Labour. But surely if we had a hung parliament the parties would have to talk with one another rather than shout and heckle across a room.

Believe or not but MPs are eleceted to serve the people and not just there own political agendas. It is said that we have a choice to change the MPs every five years. Yes that is true but through lobby groups, MPs surgeries, letters and the like they are to represent our needs in parliament. Not to sling mud at each other because one parties agenda does not agree with another. The only time that a government remebers the electorate is at election time so that they can try and sweeten us for another term in office. Let us not be fooled by the promises that the leaders have given us in these debates. They will only try and implement these pledges close to election. Before that they will try and please their support group first and then try and crush the support of the other parties. Maggie Thatcher did this by crushing the unions and Tony blair did this by appealing more to the middle to upper classes and business. But the Lib Dem supporter is harder to define and usually harder to find. But now Mr Clegg has shown a bit of savvy there seem to be a few more visible Lib Dem suppoters.

This election, like any other is one big game where by we should be telling not asking the politicians what they have to do to work for us.

As well as looking at the big picture look at the small one and research your local candidates as they will be serving you for the next five years or so. and you do not want to have a no hoper working for you for the next five years.

Lets get real here please. No matter who you vote for, i can guarantee you wont be a 100% match of what there policies are. Look at them!, there all saying they are going to change the UK for good but look at the UK right now. How did they get that way?, easy, from the history of labour in the last god knows how many years. Im not saying its just labour, im saying, no matter who takes over, its going to be the same old donkey but in a different suit. Im voting for someone, but it wont be for them 3.

These guys have enough time to think on what there cuts and profits are going to be, so why dont they put there cards on the table and tell us the truth for once?.

Dont be fooled by there gimmick meetings on BBC (In HD may i add)
look at what they really are offering and then think of this.

Is an offer to good to be true?....... Usually, it is

Like the words out of there mouths.
If it sounds to good then.....well, it is

Cameron, young and untried. Clegg, young and untried. Brown 13 years of experience but inept. What a choice!

Interesting to read the comments about the debates being too long and yet not enough time to cover things in proper detail.
Personally, I would like to see the debates shortened, probably to an hour, but to also increase the number of them. Maybe increase to 4, thus giving Channel 4 one of them, and then set out that each one has 2 focuses, each having half an hour set aside and in which they should probably have 3-4 questions asked at the start of each half hour about the particular subject and then it is their responsibility to both cover their ideas and also answer the questions and then throw in some arguing as well.
However, it might also be better to do it so that the PM (and equivalents) only do 2 of them and then throw in Home and Foreign spokespersons for the other 2 as too much of this will only go further to making people think that this is about 3 people, not the parties and the constituency candidates.

As to tonight, I only caught the second half so I await tomorrow to see a repeat. But Cameron seemed to edge it from Clegg and whilst Brown seemed to give a better performance than the previous 2 he was still a distant third.
I just hope that the voting system will deal out a result similar to the percentages at the end of the day.

Gordon Brown is certainly dead in the water. So if the labour vote collapses further where do the votes shift . Some may go to prop up the Libdems in the south. Also think back to the euro elections last year and the big showing for UKIP? Where will the anti-EU vote go? Poll tonight shows Clegg way ahead amongst undecided. There's also the expenses curse on all your houses vote.

Don't think Cameron has it sewn up by any means and a too confident right wing press could backfire. At the moment my guess is on a big tory party but struggling to creep over the majority line. Next thursday night will be very long.

None of the party leaders stood out for me, so I am going to have to give my vote to Gordon Brown because of one thing in particular - the WORLDWIDE financial meltdown, which required some innovative and tough decisions, and, personally speaking, the Icesave fiasco - we got all our money returned, (remember that?) thanks to his policy at the time. If it was not for this we would be in dire straits financially. It was not his fault that we invested in Icesave but we were bailed out when it all went wrong. Given time his policies will be seen to be effective, but the market needs time to recover. A bit of loyalty would not go amiss in this election.

I am from another European country but have lived in this country for 12 years, I don't have the right to vote for general election but can vote at local and European elections.
I am a taxpayer and therefore I have an interest in the outcome of this election. What seems terribly frightening to me is the discrepancy between the voters expectations and the reality of the task at hand for the next government.
If you focus not on the delivery but on the validity and the basis of the arguments made on each of those televised debate, I must say that Gordon Brown convince me the most in terms of having the knowledge and the understanding of what it takes to execute the necessary and difficult decisions to support the recovery.
The other two candidates despite their genuine personal convictions that they have the right ideas in place have no experience of the consequences of their proposed plans.
Gordon Brown and his government have been containing the haemorrhage and need to be given the chance to stop it and help the country regain the strength it needs to stand up again in the global economic world.
There is no such thing as a sovereign country anymore, the spheres in which the drivers of an economy live are not limited to what is happening in the UK, the UK is part of a system that is greater than its geographical borders and to protect what exist within its borders, the voters need to ensure they elect someone who has the gravitas required to lead a country both at the national and international level.
With no real alternative, Brown comes across has a man of integrity whose profound dedication is put to the service of his country and not to serve personal ambitions, he has already achieved that.
Let him finish the job, and in five years time let’s revisit his performance.

yawn yawn, media machine sponsored by Tory backers goes in to overdrive... Cameron never won that, how can, "we must do better", "we need improvement in society" and "i love this country" wash as policies? They sound good, but that's all they are, soundbites! The other two aren't any better, but Cameron, the statesman in waiting?? Is this what we've come to?

I'm embarrassed that these three are the best we have to offer... If you really want change, and show your disgust at the total avoidance of policy, and finger pointing antics that have gone on in Westminster for the past 300years, show these fat cats that the biggest majority in this country are those not wishing to vote for anyone at all!

Well thats it then......how very polite they all were. Take the gloves of Mr. Cameron you have six days to blast them out of the water, Brown is bankcrupt, Clegg is superficial and someone needs to explain that we are walking blinfold into crisis of non government (ie hung parliament)lets here from the team, Osborne, Clarke and others.

Brown is a busted flush, he has no charisma, no sense of what the public want, no moral compass (as he once claimed), no vision and no chance of winning this election, unless by default.

Let's face the facts, after 13 years of Labour we have a country sinking in a sea of debt, 900,000 school-leavers without a job, manufacturing closing down at an alarming rate, millions on incapacity benefit, 2.5 million on the dole, (with those who want to work unable to find any meaningful employment), unaffordable housing,(esp. for first-time buyers), uncontrolled immigration (without integration) which will exacerbate social tensions, the list goes on...and on...and on.

Whoever wins this election has got to have plenty of drive and vision, clearly this is not Gordon Brown.

Cameron's well-rehearsed, warm-hearted rich boy and his silky, clipped delivery and his easy charm work better every time. On election day I think the UK voters' old, old "let's turn to The Tories coz times is toof, lad" reflex will kick in and The Tories will win. And when, in less than a year, Cameron's true Thatcher "rob the poor to pay the rich" colours burst forth, we'll all rapidly and bitterly regret not having had the guts to have chosen Clegg when we had the chance.

#15 hgreenish has pointed out the lie which we are spun about 3000 millionairs and inheritance tax. In many areas houses of £750,000 are commonplace and wouldn't reach the status of mansions. I'm surprised DC hasn't nailed this formally. I would have thought London alone could achieve 3000!
It's strange GB considers a tax threshold of 6000 is sufficient for a single person to pay tax in order to support tax credits for a poor family on 50,000. I guess that's called Socialism NuLabour style.I'm not sure NC would really have any more fair policies however, as although he promises all £750 we dont seem to know what pays for it. Overall we need return to simpler tax systems operated via PAYE and the credit system only paying those in need. For example elderly politicians of almost 60 with young chidren to support and who find themselves jobless.

As usual, the standard Gordon Brown hating. The recession is greatly linked to market liberalisation from the tories in the 80s, so lets not completely blame him here. The deficit is a necessary evil, its basic Keynesian economics to spend during a recession to help get out of it. But then I suppose everyone is all neoliberal now.

And great to see everyone falling into the Cameron trap of actually believing his spin. £1 in every £100 isnt a lot? Thats billions of pounds. Thats a misguiding analogy to say the least. For example giving the third world 1% more of world trade would equal more than all the global aid combined, but 1% is actually a hell of a lot, hence why it hasnt / wont happen. So Camerons rhetoric definetely didnt wash on me in the context of public spending. His efficiency savings I have read to be a joke aswell, in the way that it will lose jobs. And Labour just wasting money? They are already making billions of savings in the NHS as it is, thats what makes Camerons pledge too unbelievable.

Clegg lost his opportunity again to distance himself from the typical rhetoric, and so I cant look at him in a better like than Cameron or Brown, even if I agree with some of his policies.

So for me, its a choice between Labour and Lib Dems, swinging in Labours favour. But then im pretty alone in sticking up for Labour.

Oh, and loss of industry, also instigated heavily by the tories in the 80s. Yes, its continued to decline. But if we had a sustained Conservative government for the past 13 years instead, you cannot honestly say they would have saved industry.

The debate was still light on detail, but you don't really expect any of them to be honest enough to confirm how many jobs need to be lost from the public sector to reinstate a reasonable balance between public and private sector workers. If you are in a job which creates wealth, either through producing something needed or aiding efficiency in the running of the state you should be safe. The trouble is that there are too many non jobs.
Means testing targets help to those most in need but it is a costly way of doing it. Child allowance and the winter fuel allowance for example are cheap to administer.
At 02:46am on 30 Apr 2010, 1geoffski wrote
"Overall we need return to simpler tax systems operated via PAYE and the credit system"
Absolutely right, we can't now afford complicated systems which are expensive to administer.
Brown may be doing Labour a favour though not to himself. If Conservatives win and are then responsible for cuts they will be unpopular at the following election so Labour get back and, as always, spend, spend, spend till we're nearly broke so the IMF has to step in. That's great because they can then blame the rotten foreigners, yet again. After all the present mess is nothing to do with 13 years of Labour - it's a world recession.
"Nothing to do with us" guv.

Please please not another conservative / labour government - can the entire beliefs of 70 million people really be represented by these two parties with their simplistic manifestoes, or do we / should we be able to vote for something / someone who truly represents us no matter what our beliefs? Screw the fears of a hung parliament, if the electorate doesn’t fear it on mass then why do the politicians?

The Selfish will vote Tory, the Selfish Hypocrites will vote Lib Dem and the Rest will vote Labour with the lunatic fringe voting others.

A huge number will not vote which is the worst thing of all, but it will still come down to the usual human frialties, those that have or think that they deserve to have will vote Tory, those that think that the Wrong people have and that they know who the Right people to have would be (including them because they are so nice), will vote Lib dem and those that think that everbody should have but haven't got a clue how to arrange that but know that it would have to include them will vote Labour. The sad sacks, losers and lunatic fringe will stay with the English Democrats, UKIP, BNP and associated otherly types.

What about the Greens ?

Exactly.

Labour is like building that superb sandcastle that looks so solid and protective, but wheb the sea turns tide is washed away leaving a bare remnant as a reminder.

If you aren't quite with thee metaphor its money that is the sea.

I will always know which way to vote simply because all Tories are innately selfish and despicable, so I shall vote to the "Left" of them, I couldn't sleep well otherwise. Thankfully they only have a constituency for the next thirty years or so and then they will be as one with the Dodo.

As an ex pat it was good to see the BBC's debate, sad to say it was the same old cod's wallup, labour has had it's stint, we know from the past the true blue's so why not try sumat new a coaltion of the three, it has work in Canada for the last four year's, at least it keeps em onest. so I say go Gleggy go man go.

"desperate stuff from a dseperate man"

desperate*

Come on now, at least check over your article before you publish it on the BBC.

Thought Clegg and Brown were quite good most of the time. (Gordo does make me wince when he goes into "banging on about tax credits" mode though, and Clegg allows his irritation with the others to show through a bit too much).

I thought Cameron was awful - he was the most negative, and the most conspicuous in his failure to answer questions or clearly explain his (lack of?) policy in the areas discussed. Cameron's answers just raised a load more questions (with me at least).
He also seemed to be in a permanent sulk, which I was quite surprised about.

And why does Cameron say "you shouldn't go round frightening people in an election campaign, it's just wrong" last week - then, err..... go round frightening people this week with deliberate misrepresentation of the LibDems policies on the Euro and the "Immigration Amnesty"?

Clegg dealt easily with the Euro lie - but I thought he could have given a more focussed answer on the immigration policy.

Actually quite tired of Gordon Brown now - far too many half truths (I'd stop short of saying "lies") relating to other parties manifestos, every statistic he trots out seems to be disputed and of course the leaflets. He must surely know the truth as I can't believe he is so badly advised.

My suspicion is that the wave of support for lib dems and Clegg will wane over the final week culminating in a lot happy people declaring they will vote for Clegg but when they get in the booth they will not follow through.

For Dave it is time to get the gloves off and make this a real springboard for the last week of campaigning (pelase avoid the big society stuff though, it is a great idea but the naturally lazy UK public aren't interested in doing stuff for themselves!).

Will be interesting to seee how UKIP (and the BNP) poll in this election.

The main parties effectively said in the debate they couldn't/wouldn't do much about it except fiddle round the edges, so it's only really UKIP or BNP who cater for those with a fairly robust anti-immigration stance.

These polititians are all the same...they are all liers.

What I thought was a very poignant remark was made by a biographer of Gordon Brown, (I didn`t catch his name, title: `The End of Labour`), on `The Campaign Show` on BBC Parliament, who said that the crux of Brown`s character deficiency, apart from reacting angrily to anyone who didn`t agree with him, was that, not only doesn`t he like the English working people, he doesn`t even like the English.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Is it right that the so called instant polls are based upon the self selecting few who choose to enter some media websites ? These are probably activists. Accordingly would it be reasonable to suppose that the results are highly dubious? Yet they are given headline status. I thought Brown had the greatest impact.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Surely some of these 'facts' are provable?

Nick Clegg says 80% of immigrants could come anyway, as being of EU origin. BBC News states the figure is closer to 32%. Which is correct?

Gordon Brown says (and parroted by Nick Clegg) that only 3,000 will benefit from the Conservative's Inheritance Tax policy. Given just house price inflation, how can that be right?

Nick Clegg talks of city centre apartments being left empty and the government doing something about it - what? Buy them - where's the money coming from? Expropriate them?

Nick Clegg also denies wanting to take us into the Euro – really? So is he going to deny his other pro-EU policies, as well?

Come on Nick R., please don't succumb to the SpinMeisters - present the facts.

My view

Cameron won but could have done better if he had come out and been more specific on the cuts that MUST be made.

Clegg lost some of his shine as he struggled on his amnesty and the Euro

Brown – find it hard to understand how he is still in the game. Have people forgotten who was in charge of the economy?

I suspect the leader debate polls reflect the general voting intentions, hence Brown's standing in them.

I thought Cameron was the weakest, said almost nothing of any real substance just platitudes and posturing. Clegg's sneering/jibing 'look at the other two..' was tired and Brown whilst passionate and detailed was always on a hiding to nothing anyway - the people that dislike him will dislike him whatever he says.

The real tragedy is the hole in all the parties manifesto's when it comes to the real scale of cuts/taxation that they will introduce. It is nothing short of fraud. These debates have been rather like arguing on the how many deck chairs we need on the titanic. At a time when politicians are so mistrusted they are asking the electorate to make a leap of faith on there policies.

If they were working in business they'd be prosecuted under the sale of goods act or the serious fraud office.

All of politics needs a masive shake up. And this Election isn't going to deliver that.

I have a real passion for Politics ... But I've missed most of the three debates - I've fallen asleep !!! Nothing more to be said really !!

So only 3,000 are going to benefit from the Conservative's Inheiritance tax cut - a drop in the ocean, so why was Gordon Brown banging on about it ALL night. Just made him sound really desperate. Whoever told him to keep shaking his head needs firing - he looked vacuous, like a nodding dog. Not that it matters as he's dead in the water anyway.

Mr Clegg was exposed as the lightweight he is. For heaven's sake how does someone who gets his figures so very badly wrong and doesn't appear to know what's in his own manifesto ever get to be a Party leader? Poor man comes across as a bit dim, I fear. Lots of style but no substance. The good-guy act has worn thin.

Cameron was disappointing too - he's really not made for TV either, is he? Looking back on the debate, however, he certainly scored the most points and was coherent, reasoned and statesmanlike. You came away with the impression of a safe pair of hands.

I was delighted at Gordon Browns performance, in Politics it takes time to make changes, like the ovehaul of the Benefits system, ID cards, and Tax Credits to help all who need it and the incl So the rise in NI contributions is necessary and i think the real complainers are those on the much higher scaleudes some on Middle Incomes.

He continues to make sure our country is well defended, has ploughed millions into the Health service and Education so i'm afraid not much left to "save" after he funds all of that. The NI rise was necessary and really the main objectors are those those not eligible for working tax credit or those who dont have children.

i think all of his policies are sound, and if we dont vote Labour the country will plummet further instead of prospering like in Greece, theres every possibility of a domino effect in Europe.

I thought it was a load a tosh.

Brown lumbered by the fact that he got us into this mess.

Clegg overplaying the innocent man in the middle.

Cameron hamstrung by goofy inheritance tax policy.

ALl so naive when it came to industrial policy and the need to "bring back manufacturing".

45. At 06:36am on 30 Apr 2010, Mark Liversedge wrote:

>> "All of politics needs a masive shake up. And this Election isn't going to deliver that. "

I think in some respects it may, and if it does, these deliberately ungladiatorial TV events will have done the nation a valuable service.

A great deal needs to change in British politics and we ain't going to have a revolution (nor should we). A 3-way power split will be a good first step in a programme of genuine, incremental, change.

If the UK was a ship, its course over the last 50 years would have been something like tack left, then right then left again etc in multiples of 5 years. These changes of direction have not been - in the main - due to changing winds of economic fortune, but due to the political persuasions of successive crews and their autocratic captains.

The famed corporate entropy of the civil service does, of course, take some of the extremes out of this zig zag course, but nevertheless our national ship still changes direction every few years.

If, as seems possible, this election delivers three significant power bases and - dare one hope it - proportional representation, then the good ship UK will steer a more constant course. It's for sure that there will be constant arguments on the bridge, as DC has said, there will far more discussion, argument and consultation about everything. However, that means that the Captain will have far less room to be autocratic and dogmatic about decisions. We've suffered a system where the Captain's word is law for at least the last 30 years, and been subjected to a series of captains who each had their own set of "big ideas" that resulted in dramatic changes of course in various areas of national life.

This time around, the crew of HMS UK may be composed less of obedient automata and more of thinking people with varied opinions and political persuasions that must be accommodated by the captain. That may be bad and noisy for those on the bridge, but for those of us on deck I think the ship may at last chart a straighter and more measured course that allows it to gain speed.

I think we should try it. If it happens, in the long run we will have the TV debates to thank (or curse) for it.


Alan T

36. At 04:11am on 30 Apr 2010, jml1970 wrote:

Can you please send me the link to the debate you were watching as it was obviously not the same one the rest of us watched.

Clegg was wrong on the Euro as per his own manifesto and Paddy pants down.

He got his numbers wrong on immigration - not 70% comming from EU but 35%

At best he got second. Brown was better than before but still a poor third.

If this is your best judgement on the debate, Nick, better go for that job with Alistair Campbell now. You are, after all, about as abjectly objective as he is ! Shocking report and the one on TV too !

Find Cameron hard to weigh up. Gives across a sense of entitlement and at times petulance. Generally speaks in pre-packaged soundbites.

Clegg not at his best but came across as having more 'passion' than the other two. The 'amnesty' is the only sensible way forward for most of those who are already here.

Brown struggles to engage; he is not a 'media' leader.

It's a shame that politics has turned into a beauty contest. I think the outcome of this election depends entirely on the scale and organisation of anti-tory voting in swing seats.

"You sometimes wonder if Gordon Brown knows which country he is Prime Minister of"

Of course he knows

Scotland.

Clegg and Cameron seemed to be pretty level pegging although the liberal democrats are a little hampered by immigration and the euro, which I think Clegg backed off of a little. I Think poor old Gordon Brown is just a very dour person and memories of the last 13 years are dragging him down.

All desperately unconvincing. Brown's view that the economy is better off for the Government's involvement is scarey. Cameron's notion of a unilateral levy on the banks - some virtually state owned and some quite capable of upping sticks and opting to pay tax somewhere else - is economicallu illiterate. Cleeg seems to have swallowed the Powerpoint Manual of Presentation Skills and didn't really much distinctive to say apart from references to raising basic tax allowances - which is a good idea only insofar as the system needs some simplification.
Horrible, horrible. I think I will end it all now.

30. At 02:59am on 30 Apr 2010, Ben Fowler wrote:
As usual, the standard Gordon Brown hating. The recession is greatly linked to market liberalisation from the tories in the 80s.....
==========
Oh dear, and there was me thinking that market liberalisation actually helps growth (remember the boom you enjoyed? I know it seems a long time ago now but still..) I guess we need to go back to the good old noble and surf model, now that was a time when market liberalisation was a real dirty word!

At 04:11am on 30 Apr 2010, jml1970 wrote:

Thought Clegg and Brown were quite good most of the time. (Gordo does make me wince when he goes into "banging on about tax credits" mode though, and Clegg allows his irritation with the others to show through a bit too much).

I thought Cameron was awful - he was the most negative, and the most conspicuous in his failure to answer questions or clearly explain his (lack of?) policy in the areas discussed. Cameron's answers just raised a load more questions (with me at least).
He also seemed to be in a permanent sulk, which I was quite surprised about.
-------------

Wrong blog. Try the Guardian, where they are similarly misinterpreting events and their poll is out of kilter with everyone else

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Funny how the further Mr. Brown falls the more Mr. Clegg cozies up to Mr. Cameron. Obviously Mr. Clegg will go either way, any way, just to get himself into the government. Whatever happened to principals?
Will Mr. Cameron do a better job? Who knows. Can he do worse than Mr. Brown, hopefully not.
Mr. Brown's repeated claims of good fiscal management (in good times and bad) seemed hollow given the current state of our economy. If we did so well during the first 11 years where were those 'extra' funds during the last 2 years? It seems to me those funds went to increased government spending, artificially creating the good times.
Mr. Clegg, I think you've proved throughout this campaign that you will support whoever it takes for you to get ahead. Be careful, you could do yourself an injury with your feet on both sides of the fence.
Whatever happens next week it is likely to have significant impact on our lifestyle. Maybe we'll return to the principals of living within our means. Maybe we'll start being responsible for ourselves instead of relying on government. Whatever happens I'm confident we'll weather the storm just as we have in the past.

No party gets re-elected after a recession, and the polls are reflecting that. The big worry is a tory majority, as Cameron will send us into another tide of Thatcherism.

Many of you will say 'So what's wrong with that?' The trouble is the tory's polarise society - some will do very well, but others will be destroyed. That's always the result of their ideology.

When things go wrong as a result of their policies, they'll blame anyone who doesn't have a voice to defend themselves. Time will tell.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Let's face it.......

Whoever we vote for - Government Wins!

Labour has been tweeting the party breakdown of a sample of postal votes. This is against the rules and was done by their twitter tsar who is now an MP candidate for Bristol east - you could not make it up.

Labour seem to be very happy about the percentage of votes they got in that sample. Polls may well be underestimating labour's postal votes competencies.

Sorry to disappoint you but SNP are in power in Scotland.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

58. DidYouReDo wrote
Wrong blog. Try the Guardian, where they are similarly misinterpreting events and their poll is out of kilter with everyone else
-------------------
funny that the guardian is the third most read english speaking online newspaper in the uk and has won several awards recently for best website.
you wont find that sort of quality with the mail online although im sure you are intune with the utter nonsense they write and their right of right wing bias.

These comments prove to me that the BBC has been doing a great job over the last few years. I.E denegrating Labour while promoting the Tories.

Gordon Brown is a pr disaster, hopeless at engaging with people
but I am not fooled by Cameron's smooth persona
the conservatives serve the rich well, at the expense of ordinary people
Labour will get my vote, because we have a very good candidate, Alan Whitehead, and that labour care about the less well off.
the conservatives voted against the minimum wage! and working tax credits, that shows they don't give a hoot about those struggling.
conservatives are selfish greedy people, with no social conscience.
fox hunting is a "sport" to them, what nasty people they are

Cheer up, everyone, at least none of them are the BNP - sure, they might have a 'radical stance on immigration' but they have NOTHING else; they're sexist and racist thugs. Nothing any of these three could do could be anywhere near as bad as the moral degeneration the BNP would put us through...

Well if the first debate was rivetting, the second watchable, last night's was lacklustre. All three candidates rolled out the same old tired arguments. A real feeling of deja vu.

At last Cameron set Brown right on his warped view that a cancelled stealth tax (not a tax cut, BTW) is "taking money out of the economy" and good to hear - at last - that the Conservatives pledge to reduce red tape for smaller businesses and make it easier for them to bid for Government work.

Clegg meanwhile played to the beard and sandals brigade on wind farms.

However, given the passion evinced in most weeks' PMQs, what an insipid performance by all three. I think the IFS call it correctly when the next term is a poisoned chalice and neither Cameron nor Clegg really wants it.

Oh, and I think the kindest thing that can be said for Dumblebee is that the format didn't suit him. Too much letting it turn into a non-debate between Cameron and Brown with Clegg left stranded as piggy in the middle. (Where's Peppa?)

Whoever is elected, it has to be noted that the world as we have known it and in particular the UK is not the same. The policies of old were based on a very different demographic spread. We have been looking at this for many years as I remember learning about the change of population pyramids at school in the 1970's and much predicted then has come to pass, with the added incidence of high immigration which in general has not added to improvements. We have a fast aging society and shrinking working /native population which cannot fund the policies of today. Those who are native work to support a much more needy population for health care and pensions and the immigrants may pay taxes, but they do not really invest in the country as the majority of their earnings will be sent home to support their own or to invest in their futures. All in all, whoever wins a radical change of policies is needed and a radical change of outlook by the populace. The need for prosperity may need to change to re-population on the home-front and more home-based industry that can support the economy. For sure, whoever is voted in needs to be experienced and steadfast as no-one will like the changes that are coming, but a bitter pill can lead to a healthier life. By the way I am all for free movement of people, living myself in another country, but can see the risks involved in the long-term shrinkage of the native population and it's economic output.

It was interesting to hear how they would improve the state of affairs create jobs etc. Lets hope whoever gets in can tackle with honesty the mammoth tasks ahead.

Unfortunately, there was scant detail, with voters becoming more aware of the issues and more agitated at everything thats happening, one thing is certainly clear that policitians will have to change their ways as apathy is spreading.

They will have to make positive changes to politics and where there are hard decisions they will need to inform the country why they wish to do something and supply the reasoning without that people will lose interest and become disorientated and at the end of the day that could cause further problems.

Clegg looked weak on immigration, welfare reform and the economy. Good to hear Cameron saying he would get tough on those who abuse the benefits system, not before time.

I did not watch any of the debates but followed the post bedate programmes after each debate and there was two themes. 1, they were to stage managed and the three of them were not challenged. 2, Gordon Brown was a spent force who never had any chance of gaining from this . If we are stuck with them they need to be in a new format so we can challenge answers and then maybe more of us will take part. I am interested in what happens so much that I was amazed to read that the Daily Mirror were saying that Gordon Brown said what he did about Mrs Duffy because he thought she swore when speaking about Eastern Europeans ( see BBC paper review) He was either not listening to her or they are now trying to make her look bad

re #61 'the trouble is the Tories polarise society'
Is that correct? Or is it that the moderate, central and militant Left will come out and protest and strike irrespective of a new Tory government's policies, purely because of the past - especially the Thatcher led past.
The Blair/Brown administration has been very Thatcherite, very right wing, very polarising - ID cards?, low tax for high earners? Iraq? - but by and large the Left has been very, very quiet. Is it not the the spectre of the BNP that has helped to revitalise them and has raised noise levels somewhat?

Mr Brown's performance was abysmal; he looked ill; the man's a loser.

Clegg was sweating and all over the place.

Cameron hammered both of them and, finally, came across as the guy who could well lead us out of the shocking consequences of 13 years of unreconstructed Marxism.

Dave, whilst hiding behind a raft of friendly Labour policies wants to freeze public spending ( even though teaching is so vital etc etc) whilst cutting corporation tax on companies and cutting inheritance tax to reward 'hard work and saving' ( ie being born rich).

It is the same old Tory trickle down economics of rewarding the 'wealth creators and risk takers' so that eventually jobs are created lower down the ladder.

There was old fashioned Toryism in his lack of vision for education - more discipline, setting - but I expect that he will appeal to enough people's baser instincts to be our next Prime Minister.

Fast forward 18 months - watch him blaming 13 years of labour 'misrule' for all his cock ups. He'll find it not so easy doing the job for real rather than being able to duck and dive on policy every time the wide blows.

It's as scary as hell to me. I don't think he really truly understands what life is like. I don't think he can think beyond the abstract.

Let's wait until jobless people have their benefits cut and are out on the street.

I am absolutely astonished that David Cameron let Gordon Brown get away with the 'low interest rates' comment.
THE BANK OF ENGLAND SETS INTEREST RATES, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. This arrangement was one of Gordon Brown's first acts in 1997 as Chancellor..!
Also DC failed to challenge Gordon Brown on the state of the country's finances BEFORE the banking crisis - they were already dire, and the banking crisis simply put us in hock for generations to come, and made it more difficult for us to pull out of recession.

brown Gordon looked decidedly ill to me; a man who should take to his bed, probably for months, and months and months.

I did like his joke though, that he knew how to manage the economy. Haven't laughed so much in ages. His new career, when he leaves politics ... a stand up comedian?

a balanced parliment would be the best solution. one single party can never govern us again without the majority of votes. the sooner pr is introduced the better and then an end to right wing politics given a mandate by a minority of votes.

Clegg denied his love for the euro - which would have seen us lending to Greece like Portugal has to now. It was like St Peter denying he knew Jesus. Me? Pro-euro? Of course not!

Labour on postal votes - yes watch out for what they do. I think postal votes should be banned. In Richmond the libdems and in Warwick&Leamington labour (just two I know about) have been removing or defacing conservative posters. Labour is trying to turn this country into Chavez's Venezuela.

I like a bit of passion in my politicians and if that passion can be allied to a fabulous policy which they clearly believe in, then so much the better. Such was the case with Nick Clegg yesterday on (1) immigration, and (2) taking the low paid out of tax. These were the best moments of a generally very good debate which rivetted me from start to finish. The other two (Brown and Cameron) were same old same old - i.e. both excellent in their own way. Sad that the whole thing is over, to be honest - actual election seems an irrelevance now. Feel a bit flat.

Think Mr Robinson is wilting a bit under the pressure. I only caught the last half hour on R4 but NR seems to have been a bit distracted or asleep, perhaps, judging by his bit at the top?

Nick - you are always so Tory biased - not a suprise really ,.knowing your background -

i have never voted labour and don't plan to but i thought GB was clearly the best last night

Brown.....useless, looked dead
Clegg..... weird policies, sweaty
Cameron....brilliant, statesmanlike
BBC....NO apparent Labour bias !

We're facing an impending financial nuclear winter far worst then Hitler's legions across the channel. Brown's a man drowning in his own 'truth'.The very fact he's consistently refused to acknowledge his past mistakes (trying to cover up docs of gold sale)renders him unfit to hold high office of any sort never mind the Queen's Firsat minister! Clegg waves his hand like an insurance salesman 'full of sound and fury signifying nothing'. David Cameron has passion and is a conviction politician and he's got a heavy weight in Kenneth Clarke to make up for his youth. He's seen black thursday first hand as an adviser to Norman lammont whist clegg was busy scoring & playing away to reach his 30th girl in bed.its time to withdraw our outstretch grasping hand and starts to take responsibility for our own well being and that of our own children.A welfare society and overburdened public sector breeds indolence, a society sustained by 'overburdened necessities' and hubris that ultimately leads to nemesis!

I feel sorry for Gordon Brown. No, seriously. He may not be the most personable of the three but does that necessarily mean he is the least capable?
The hole bigotgate thing seems to be incredibly unfair becuase, as Andrew Neil said the other day, 'there by the grace of god goes David Cameron', or any of the others. I'm not surprised he said something like that because i'm positive they all do in private, and or course he was going to be polite to her face becuase he was being watched by the media and others. The development of the media has created this spin and media savvy world of politics, so it seems hypocritical for the media to use this privately recorded conversation against him when they have created this expectation of superficially crowd pleasing personalities.

Am i voting Labour? I'm not sure if i can becuase of Iraq. It wouldn't feel right.

I know i'm not voting Conservative though, i just wouldn't trust them. I work in the public sector and i think that they would do more damage than good.

I hope, i really HOPE that, as others have said here, a hung parliament forces the politicians to work together for US, for the long term, rather than for their own agendas. Am i being unrealistic?

I have been a keen follower of politics since the mid seventies and have not watched the debates on TV because I thought they would devalue the party policies . I did watch the final debate last night and as I thought it was quite laughable. Anyone who watched that last night and actually thought it was about politics is misguided at best. Come on everyone, who cares about who looks the best or stands correctly ? This is a watering down of politics to appease the TV companies who cannot bring themselves to cover 'boring' proper issues correctly. The sad thing is members of the public who haven't got a clue about the issues will read the papers and actually believe them.

Cameron presented himself better. The other 2 candidates didn't properly expose some of his darker policies.Its difficult to remember back to when the Tories were in and almost every potentially useful social investment funded by Government came under pressure for cash or were scrapped and Brown and Clegg failed to bring that out.
Brown cannot talk of the future within the context of his recent past. He was Chancellor and PM when the recession hit, and the recession hitting was aided and abetted by his policies. If he was such an economic genius he would have spotted the warning signs and put the brakes on, but he didnt, he slammed his foot down on the accelerator until we went over the cliff. All Labour politicians are secretly hankering for the world of high finance; it's their guilty secret and the reason they spent their time kow-towing to Bank CEOS's instead of taking an objective look at what was happening.
Clegg looks tired and spent - not as used to the exposure as the other two. Libs need to park him for 2 or 3 days and wheel out Cable, Huhne, Ashdown, Kennedy and Steele. The original plan was to use Cable by the looks of things but Clegg managed to perform ok on his own. Now he is over-exposed.

Gordon really does need to get out of talking the half-truth. It does nothing for his argument and compounds the feeling that he lacks credibility.

He did this again last night, especially when referring to the Tory proposals to cut corporation tax rates. He referred to such cuts as a tax cut for the banks (disregading his cut Government's cut in corporation tax rates over the years).

You would have to be particularly lacking in nous to understand that a cut in corporation tax rates would affect all companies - but that if a specially tax levy became appropriate, as Cameron suggested, such a levy - as has happened in the past - would rebalance the position.

As a critic of Cameron in the past, I have to say that I thought he came across extremely well. At one stage I feared he was going to drift off into his usual anecdotes but didn't do so. He appeared more in command of his subjects and confident.

Saint Nick, although seeking to command a reasonable-sounding position, did stumble. I got a little confused when he referred to Vice-Chancellors when (I suspect) he meant Shadow Chancellors in forming a committee to deal with the current crisis *cough*; but overall he wasn't the same as before. He performed a great look of contempt in Gordon's direction (caught on the Beeb and shown on Breakfast this morning) but somehow you're left with the feeling that the more stones that are over-turned in the LibDems garden the more unpleasant things one finds.

It was pretty clear the lines that Gordon was going to take before the debate happened. Liam Byrne gave these away when talking to Emily Thingamyjig ahead of the debate - at the time I thought it was all going to be a case of fraudulent misstatement from Gordon's direction and so it turned out to be.

Contrary to the Tory newspaper snap polls Brown won this debate on substance and message delivered (everyone seems to recall at least something of what he said. And considering the disaster of Wednesday it was plain to see that he was still fighting his corner with conviction. As for 'con' Cameron he simply did not engage in the debate nor did he answer any questions that were put to him. A plank of wood would have been more animated. In short, evasion was his strategy. Clegg did okay and made some passionate pleas for change. He showed his frustration at times at Cameron's lack of engagement and strange 'what on earth is he talking about?' statements. I do like some of Cleggs policies although I am not sure if the country as a whole is ready to contemplate joining the Euro and possible unilateral nuclear disarmament in one manifesto.

#79 - was going to make the same point. Cameron didn't deal enough knock out blows when he had the chance.

For me Clegg squirmed last night, his petulant heading shaking and smiling became pretty tiresome. He was stuffed on 3 issues and struggled under pressure from both sides. Not a man I want running the country. Good showing overall but not a leader.

DC failed to answer the question on many occassions but when do politicians ever? I would say he is the lesser of the 3 evils.

Poor old Gordon, he looked haggard and sounded desperate and near to tears in his last summing up. Until, that is, he unleashed that sinister, exocet smile of his and had me cringing and running for cover!

Yes the 90 minutes may be OK for a soccer match but for this debate it was 30 mins too long. There was too much repetition of the responses. More questions may also have given the debate a bit more sparkle and would have held more viewers.
Reading other reactions I think that these debates have been good and have raised public awareness.
I'm not sure that we have a 'leader' in the frame but we do need a change.
We shall see what unfolds next week.

It felt to me that none of the politicians answered the questions put to them. They all just trotted out prepared sound bites "don't risk the recession", "if I was Prime Minister" and "those other two parties".
The question prompted by Mrs Duffy was completely ignored "do politicians listen to people"? And no party was clear on the need for more cuts and where they would be. Actually the most annoying of the debates.

Is it now time for Labour to bring out their legendary hero, Tuscan Tony, to rescue them, and lead them to the promised land? Where is he when his party needs him?

Here's an idea! If so many of you are so down on every viable choice for government in this country, why not go somewhere else? Goodness, is anything ever good enough?

Gordon Brown has made many mistakes, but the idea of being 'let down' for 13 years makes my blood boil. New hospitals, new schools, more nurses, teachers and police, minimum wage, tax credits, sure start, falling crime, the LONGEST period of sustained growth in history. I feel badly let down by all of this.

David Cameron is no doubt a genuine and honest man, but his inability to win a majority is down to the fact that he is such a media construct as to be almost transparent. Another worry i think is that the Conservatives have opposed every move the government has made on the economy in about the last two years, flying in the face of almost every western government's policy. How worrying would it be that in a GLOBAL financial crisis, we would essentially have been going it alone? Add to these the fact that the Conservative party, even in Thatcher's heyday have not won with the majority of the popular vote, and clearly, he cannot win a majority in this election.

Nick clegg semms like the change we need, and i guess he has the debates to thank for raising his profile. Again, I'm sure that he believes in what he says, but frankly, it isn't for me really. I think he has some good ideas, but the whole package leaves me a bit 'meh'.

Here's the thing - the politicians can't sort out YOUR life! They can engender an environment where you can make a success of yourself, or not, whether you believe this to be idealogically to the left or the right (i guess you can tell from this i lean to the left!) but can we all start taking some responsibility for ourselves? Gordon Brown did NOT cause the financial problems, nor am i going to start talking about Tory msitakes from the past, but this came about because banks were taking almost ludicrous risks, often lending to US (or, to the U.S, subtle difference!). I would like to meet the person who can legitimately say "I knew i couldn't afford to pay this back, but the bank simply made me take it".

You know what i think we all need to learn, and it is a lesson i try to teach my children every day. We need to stop talking about our rights a bit, ans start talking about our responsibilities a bit more.

Rant over. Sorry.

I don’t know if anyone else has picked up on this, but did you notice the ‘body language’ at the end between Clegg and Cameron. The ‘hand shake’ with Brown was very formal, whereas there was a ‘pat on the back’ and a smile between the other two. The same happened in the second debate and in the first there was the ‘holding back’ incident to embarrass Brown.

I read quite a lot into this; my feeling is that in the event of no overall majority, it seems quite clear that Clegg and Cameron have already put the pieces in place to work together – whatever the result, short of an unthinkable Labour majority, Brown is certainly ‘toast’.

Now that we have had all three debates I wonder if they have actually achieved anything other than give the LibDems an equal platform they have been denied to date? Next time around even that novelty will be lost.

Has anyone really changed their views after watching them? Reading the comments on this blog and others it is clear that the view taken on each leader's performance is largely based on their existing political views.

I, on the otherhand, have perfect objectivity and can state without bias that Brown lost all 3 debates by a mile, Clegg faded after his initial slavo of 'time for a change' whilst Cameron was stronger each time!