What did you think of the first Election debate?

[PetrolHead]

Your thoughts? Discuss..

The moderator was more interested in the camera than the candidates!

[The_Wheelhouse]

Brown did surprisingly well given that he was defending 10 years as chancellor and 3 as prime minister.

I haven't watched it fully but it did make me think that the other two parties were more interested in looking good, they seemed to be superficial, compared to brown...

[oolon]

Was that on tonight guess I missed it? I can always catch the repeat next week.

[Michael]

I asked a question in another recent politics topic where I wanted to know how realistic the chances of the Lib Dems getting in were. Somebody mocked me saying that the odds were 300 - 1. I imagine they will be very different tomorrow.

Clegg was the star of the show for me, and according to what's being said now, and the polls, and internet response... he was for alot of others too.

This is something that hasn't been done before, and may just be what was needed... even as a someone who has no real interest in politics, I am very interested currently, and I found it fantastic.

Looking forward to the next one!

[santa claus]

Brown did surprisingly well given that he was defending 10 years as chancellor and 3 as prime minister.

A very very good point (although I might have used a word other than 'defending'); opposition is much easier than Government. The PM looked and sounded the statesman to me, allowing himself the odd wry smile at the 'earnest', soundbite whippersnappers.

[Tonka777]

I thought it was good viewing. This and a recent topic on Hexus has inspired me to endeavour to vote for the first time. I agree with the above, Brown seemed quite genuine, the Lib Dems will be getting the most benefit from it i think.

[directhex]

I asked a question in another recent politics topic where I wanted to know how realistic the chances of the Lib Dems getting in were. Somebody mocked me saying that the odds were 300 - 1. I imagine they will be very different tomorrow.

Odds on bet365.com for an outright win as of this second:

Conservative: 1:7
Labour: 5:1
Lib Dems: 66:1

So already 4.5x better odds than was previously suggested.

Edit: Ladbrokes odds:

Conservative: 1:8
Labour: 5:1
Lib Dems: 100:1

[TooNice]

Still a long shot, but not far off from the odds of winning a tenner on the Lotto.

[directhex]

Still a long shot, but not far off from the odds of winning a tenner on the Lotto.

Or of Rage Against The Machine for Xmas #1

[Whiternoise]

I think most important is that the public has been given a much better view of Nick Clegg and where he stands in the election.

Brown and Cameron are ubiquitous in the public eye, most people have heard of Nick Clegg but I bet not many could pick him out of a crowd and even fewer could actually name some of his policies. The BBC got it dead on with their analysis - Brown and Cameron were playing fairly safe, nothing new. What people will remember is that what was being said was "I agree with you, Nick".

The odds of them actually winning the election may be small, but all they need is to get to be the opposition or at least hold as much of the vote as Labour and that might be enough for next time.

[G4Z]

I keep hear Brown talking about not taking money out of the economy being critical and then saying a NI rise is necessary. Does he expect us to believe that raising taxes is somehow putting money into the economy, is he an idiot or does he just think we are idiots?

[dangel]

is he an idiot or does he just think we are idiots?

Both.

Why would anyone think differently frankly? Proven track record of incompetence and arrogance.

[G4Z]

Both.

Why would anyone think differently frankly? Proven track record of incompetence and arrogance.

Sadly I think you are 100% correct

[Saracen]

I asked a question in another recent politics topic where I wanted to know how realistic the chances of the Lib Dems getting in were. Somebody mocked me saying that the odds were 300 - 1. I imagine they will be very different tomorrow.

...

I certainly pointed out that the odds were 300:1 and it wasn't mocking you. It was simply quoting an aggregate odds from one of the sites that summarises a variety of odds from different online and high-street bookies. It was, quite literally, the odds being offered by those prepared to put money on it to back their opinion.

And yes, the odds have changed. One site now offers them 66/1, and all the others I checked offered them 100:1.

A good improvement, and no doubt Clegg scored well. But so far, all it does it change the odds almost impossible to extremely unlikely.

However, it is, and remains, the case that nobody knows.

We don't even know how it will play out if Clegg's improvement resulted in a significant improvement in LD representation in Parliament, because it all depends who he takes seats from. However you cut it, it is still extremely unlikely that Clegg win be PM on May 7th. Possible yes, but very, very unlikely. I doubt you'll find any political pundit that gives him a snowball's chance .... though they could be wrong.

But a much stronger LD vote could be an important factor. Suppose they gain especially against Tories, typically in the South. It could be enough to reduce Tory MPs and put Labour back in. But .... I'd guess that most people are more likely to be choosing between LD and Labour, especially given that the LDs are a bit further "left" than much of Labour's policies these days. So it could also well be that disenchanted Labour voters unable to stomach voting Tory will see Clegg's performance as encouraging and vote LD. If so, every seat the LDs take from Labour makes Cameron's job of getting ahead of Labour that much easier. It might not help towards an overall majority but it will help make the Tories the largest overall party.

Or, of course, it could result in a hung Parliament. Some think that might be a good thing, and it works in some countries, but it's never worked in the UK.

So get a feel for the likelihood of a LD government, take a look at the numbers voting in the 2005 election.

Labour 9.5 million
Tory 8.8 million
LD 6 million (a smidgeon under, actually).

So there's about 700,000 between the total vote for the Tories and Labour, at the last election. Those are official figures, by the way. And yet, for the Tories to get back into power, they need a very large swing. The second largest in British electoral history, if I remember correctly, second only to Blair's 1997 swing. And that's to gain 700,000 votes. The LibDems need to gain something of the order of 3 to 3.5 million to gain power.

So either we need an absolutely vast landslide swing, of an order of magnitude larger than anything that's ever happened before, or we need a vast increase in turnout, nearly all of which goes to the LibDems.


So, far from mocking you, I was simply pointing out the reality of the situation. Nobody knows how the electorate will vote. Nobody can. We can only look at the job each party has to do. But all the circumstances conspire to mean that the chances of the LDs winning is very small indeed.

What they might do is upset the traditional balance. They might end up with a strong powerbase in a hung Parliament, and they certainly might change the overall game, long-term. That they stand no credible chance of winning this election doesn't mean it will necessarily be the same at the one after this. If Clegg holds up his good performance and increases his power base, and gains in seats, and if he can leverage that into a change in voting system to one a bit less loaded against them, and if the LDs raised profile changes peoples expectations about their chances, then it might all build towards the game changing in the long term.

Notice the "mights" in that last bit, because it's by no means certain. It's not certain Clegg can hold up in the next two debates, or that either Cameron or Brown won't raise their game, or change tactics to respond to Clegg. Also, the more credible the LDs seem, the more scrutiny their policies will get, and we'll have to see how Clegg and others hold up if Paxman et al start taking them seriously and push as hard as they tend to with the main two parties.

[Saracen]

My reaction to the debate, in a couple of words .....


Boring.

Boring, boring, boring.

Booooorrring.

b....o....r....i....n....g.

Bore.....ing.

BoRiNg

*Boring*

Bee-Oh-Ahhh-Eye-Enn-Gee.

Boring.

Boring ..... BorinG

BORING

BORING!!!




.... and tedious.

[Champman99]

The debate was actually better than I expected - in that it wasnt completely horrible.

The american debates, (both real ones and especially ficticious on The West Wing ) are much more entertaining, but they also seem to really just be about the man. A quick quip or something can completely change the election. Of course charisma is important for a prime minister who is meeting with foreign leaders etc, but I mean I bet Frankie Boyle could do a nice job in getting laughs during a debate, I wouldnt want him to be PM


Of course Clegg had the best night, which I was glad about, but I think that was partly because he was left alone as the other two attacked each other to pick and chose his moments. In the US its often portrayed as if you win the debates you win the election, but surely the best Clegg can hope for is to be in a coalition, then get electoral reform (proportional representation?) pushed through.

Anyway, I will watch debate 2 and 3 for sure.