UK General Election 2010

[Kulverint]

Precisely. What are they going to do if they do start to applaud? Tell them to shut up on live TV? What can they do?

"Ladies and Gentlemen, please!"

Or do whatever they did in that West Wing ep.

hmm... probably!

[Fartsniffage]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, please!"

Or do whatever they did in that West Wing ep.

I'd vote for Santos over any of these three.

[Angleter]

Liked how Brown tried to side with himself with Clegg for a moment on the MPs expenses question. Wanting to grab those Lib Dem votes and gang up on Cameron.

Brown's trying to go on the attack on expenses? There's something about that that doesn't quite work...

I think they ran off and talked about legislative reform when that moment happened.

How can they do that? Don't they all agree on an elected House of Lords run, presumably, by the same party as the Commons?

I've always said that a non-partisan, hereditary Lords is best, but hey! More politicians!

[Chumblywumbly]

Gordon never looks happier than when he's talking about money.

"Trust me, I'm an economist."

[Kulverint]

Clegg again talking about being open and honest toward the taxpayer. When he's not looking at the audience he's looking at the Camera. Watch, people, as this is a masterclass in public speaking.

[Hydesland]

"Trust me, I'm an economist."

Didn't he study economics at uni? I forget actually.

[Kulverint]

"Trust me, I'm an economist."

Didn't he study economics at uni? I forget actually.

He was chancellor before he was Prime Minister. He was the nations economist.

[Angleter]

Gordon never looks happier than when he's talking about money.

"Trust me, I'm an economist."

He just loves money. He loves it so much he borrows tons of it, and sells off loads of gold in exchange for it. He even took lots from the pension fund so he could fill a pool with £50 notes.

[Getbrett]

"Trust me, I'm an economist."

Didn't he study economics at uni? I forget actually.

Nah, history.

Cameron has a constant frowny-face. No wonder he needed the airbrushing.

[Chumblywumbly]

"Trust me, I'm an economist."

Didn't he study economics at uni? I forget actually.

History @ Edinburgh.

[Kulverint]

And the attacks on each others manifestos begin! Cameron on Clegg about cleaning up "The Deficit"

[Lacadaemon]

Why ever not?

That's exactly who they do represent.

Because voting, as done in the UK, is an incredibly poor proxy for actual public sentiment/desires. There's all sorts of reasons for voting (or not) outside a particular party platform. I would imagine under a PR scheme, with mandatory voting, things would look quite different.

It's not the king-makers I'm concerned with, it's those minor parties (and non-party line backbenchers, incidentally) which will help pass legislation.

I really don't think they matter all that much. They aren't going to effect the election (let's be honest about this). And on the slim chance that it comes to a situation where the minority parties (outside the usual mob) actually get a seat and it actually comes to a point (even more unlikely) where they will be decisive in passing legislation (won't happen), does it even matter to most voters? Many people won't even have one of their party standing in their constituency, so it couldn't possibly effect their votes anyway. Further, most of them are all a bit shambolic and don't have any thought out positions over their usual single issue (which everyone knows in any case). I don't see what benefit would be gained from adding Nick Griffin and Martin Levy to a national debate.

As for backbenchers, they don't really matter that much anymore what with the way the central parties operate. A backbencher rebellion is a consequence of the party leadership losing control of the central party, not a cause. And in any case, they can only be off possible interest to the people in whose constituency they are standing, and aren't really suitable for a national debate.

I agree that a general airing of all minority views would be interesting. But it's completely impractical for a 90 minute debate, considering the little they would add. I think too, you have to remember that these sort of election debates are intended for people who aren't very interested in politics, so it would be a waste to chew up time on the inconsequential fringe.

[Serrland]

"Trust me, I'm an economist."

Didn't he study economics at uni? I forget actually.

History @ Edinburgh.

Edinburgh, huh? I pegged him as more of a St Andrews man.

[Kulverint]

Gordon Brown is fighting Cameron's arguments with the same arguments. The presenter is really getting on my nerves now. Interrupting the speakers mid-sentence. Let them finish, then call the next speaker, please! I want to hear their points!

[Hydesland]

"Trust me, I'm an economist."

Didn't he study economics at uni? I forget actually.

History @ Edinburgh.

Ah well, he's a mug for sure, but I still think he has the most credible economic policy - but only just.

[Getbrett]

I'm liking Clegg so far but the hand in his pocket comes across as an intentionally learned method of looking casually confident.

[Hydesland]

Shitty microphone is shitty

[The chrisman union]

It seems to me they're not really answering any of the questions. They never told the kid who asked about education why he has to take 700 tests.

[Hydesland]

Cameron trying to copy Clegg's tactic lol

[Fartsniffage]

Cameron trying to copy Clegg's tactic lol

that was poor.

[Hydesland]

That was a good and clear answer from Brown, for once.

[Chumblywumbly]

Why ever not?

That's exactly who they do represent.

Because voting, as done in the UK, is an incredibly poor proxy for actual public sentiment/desires. There's all sorts of reasons for voting (or not) outside a particular party platform. I would imagine under a PR scheme, with mandatory voting, things would look quite different.

That's very true.

I really don't think they matter all that much. They aren't going to effect the election (let's be honest about this). And on the slim chance that it comes to a situation where the minority parties (outside the usual mob) actually get a seat and it actually comes to a point (even more unlikely) where they will be decisive in passing legislation (won't happen)

With support for both Labour and the Tories so relatively low, this election is the first in about 20 years where third parties have a chance at a number of seats.

Moreover, if a hung parliament - which is still the most likely outcome - or a minority Tory government is the outcome of May 6th, minority parties will play a big role in passing any legislation put in front of the House. Without a large majority, support from the backbenches becomes incredibly important.

[Getbrett]

Oh man, Cameron looks so shifty.

[Chumblywumbly]

Brown's sounding more confident.

Oh man, Cameron looks so shifty.

He must know how much he's got to lose, and that he's the only one with such high stakes.

[Chumblywumbly]

Calling all US Americans!

Come see the conservative declare his love for universal healthcare!