Post-debate thoughts?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

Clegg came off better again, but Brown looked stronger in the 2nd half compared to the start. Cameron seemed strong in the first 20 minutes, but looked flustered and out of his depth from then on. The ITV/ComRes worm showed gradually worse ratings for Cameron has the debate wore on. Clegg got better ratings overall, but Brown had the best reception on the economy. Cameron surprisingly bombed on immigration and it's supposedly a strong issue for the Conservatives.

[Mr Creosote]

1. We thought

big win for Wade over Barney. Not making the mistake of missing the darts twice in a row.

[T_i_B]

23. I was out with some mates who'd come up from Colchester

So that's the 2nd week in a row I've avoided the debates.

One thing I have come across is people asking if there are any pubs showing the debates. Now that strikes me as a really bad idea for a pub. As it is I ended up in the Sheffield Tap, which is just beer pornography. 192 different beers to choose from and no Sky News or Sky Sports!

[ikri]

2. Thought Brown came out best

Clegg stood his ground & debated well, Brown seemed more confident and came over a lot better to last week.

Cameron was just poor.

A YouGov/Sun poll had Cameron winning that debate, no idea what debate the respondents were watching but it wasn't the same one I was.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. Yeah, I saw those YouGov figures too

Cameron was incredibly poor, but 36% obviously disagree.

[non sociopath skin]

5. YouGov figures are beginning to resemble 1930s Kremlin election results.

The Skin

[non sociopath skin]

4. Thought Cameron lost his cool quite badly at times.

The Mr. Nice Guy image is slipping.

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Yes, he didn't look comfortable out there at all

But with the polls being very close, the right-wing press will claim victory on his behalf with the YouGov survey.

[non sociopath skin]

8. Indeed. But will the person on the Clapham omnibus follow suit?

The Skin

[non sociopath skin]

9. You got that right ...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2943638/Leaders-debate-Follow-it-live.html

So what are the figures for next week's debate, Tovarich Murdok?

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. ComRes/ITV 33-30-30 for Clegg

Two very close polls that reflect the 3-way locked polling situation at large.

[fedsron2us]

10. The press had led me to believe that Clegg would be devouring infants whole on Prime Time TV

during this debate.

I was a bit disappointed that did not happen so I will be writing to Rupert Murdoch asking for the purchase price of my newspapers to be refunded.

You just cant believe what you read in the newspapers now days,

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Clegg hypnotised you into forgetting the baby-slaughtering episode

That's in addition to going back to the 1930s records so he could make it look as if the saintly Daily Mail supported the Blackshirts and Nazis. He'll stop at nothing, you know.

Actual screenshot of Clegg during the debate (remember, he was the one with the dastardly plan of look into the camera):

http://www.foothilltech.org.nyud.net:8080/rgeib/english/orwell/bb.jpg

[TheBigotBasher]

12. Clegg needed to better manage the hype.

Labour and Conservatives of course have much larger, better funded media handler than the Liberal Democrats, whose media is managed by Nick Clegg's mother in between making cups of tea, the "result" tonight was only to be expected.

People almost expected Clegg to zap away the opposition. The point Gordon Brown made should have been the Clegg strong point and should have been circulated through the media before hand. Gordon Brown should be stronger at foreign policy because he makes foreign policy decisions and gets briefings on it every day. Gordon Brown should therefore have been expected to win this.

Due to the expectations that were put on Nick Clegg it is no surprise that the "who won" the boring debate is split pretty equally. No-one won. All the polls are reflecting in terms of who won are who people will vote for.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. Guardian/ICM has it 33-29-29 for Clegg

So far it's 2-1 Clegg. In any case all three polls showed the numbers to be pretty close.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. Channel 4: Clegg 52, Brown 31 and Cameron 17.

I would have thought this was more a realistic result. 3-1 for Clegg.

[TheBigotBasher]

15. Brown didn't do that well.

He did however have the lowest of expectations which meant he only needed to answer his name to come out well.

[TheBigotBasher]

18. In fact Brown was bizarre at some stages.

I didn't get why he was calling Clegg anti-American and I thought that was just strange. The body language from Clegg was quite telling. Brown was also walking back some of his concession to the Lib Dems last week, talking of a need for a majority Labour Government.

Topsy turvy politics when a Labour PM is accusing the Lib Dems of being anti-American.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

19. the anti-American jibe didn't work

and it was a misguided attempt to portray himself as both an Atlanticist and a pro-European, between an anti-European and an "anti-American."

I don't think Brown was that great, but Cameron was just really shite in comparison.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. "anti-American" appears to have been a reference to opposing the invasion of Iraq

Of course, that would make the current president of the US anti-American too ... Brown turns teabagger?

[TheBigotBasher]

21. Topsy turvy continues.

It started with Blair accusing the Tories of being too left wing so it was only going to get worse.

[BolivarianHero]

22. I can't believe the urban twits who voted for Labour after the Iraq invasion...

I guess we know where the sheeple who watch those cruddy reality shows come from.

[TheBigotBasher]

25. The choice then was pretty horrible.

Punish Labour and get Dracula.



As well as the issue of a Howard leadership, Conservatives ran the Labour Party campaign better than their own when they produced the tag line vote Blair get Brown. It wasn't their best way to gain from the unpopularity of Blair.

No one was especially excited to vote in 2005. Blair and Howard secured almost an equal share of the vote but Labour held on to a large majority because of first past the post.

Nothing much would have changed in this election either - Labour still look to have a similar vote share this year, except Liberal Democrats have made a break through and there is the slimmest possibility that they could change the balance of power or even win.

[BolivarianHero]

26. Under the current system...

Voting Tory in a Labour-Tory marginal when Labour is polling a majority results in the most progressive outcome.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Remember, the Tories overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Iraq too

The few Tory rebels (along with Labour rebels): http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117

and after that amendment failed, hardly any of them voted against the main resolution: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118&display=allvotes

Very few people would have had the choice of a Labour candidate who was for the war, and a Tory one who was against it.

I disagree that voting Tory in a Labour-Tory marginal with Labour polling a majority is necessarily the way to get the most progressive outcome. There are some very unprogressive Tory candidates. And bookmakers still think there's about a 40% chance of the Conservatives getting an overall majority - but less than a 20% chance of Labour getting the most seats (less than 6% of Labour getting an overall majority). If you want a hung parliament, it's better to vote Labour than Tory.

[BolivarianHero]

29. That's not my point...

At this point, voting Tory in any riding is absurd. 2005 was a different story however. Given that Labour and Conservative are the least progressive parties capable of winning seats (a few demented fascists in Northern Ireland notwithstanding), voting Tory in marginals to force a hung Parliament when Labour was expected to (and did) win a majority would have made sense.

Conversely, if the Tories were polling well enough to be in majority territory, voting Labour in marginals would be the most sensible course of action if one wishes to produce the most progressive plausible outcome, which is of course a hung Parliament.

Since a hung Parliament is the most likely outcome right now, people should just vote for the strongest party in their riding that is neither Labour nor Tory, making exceptions for the few leftists that slipped through the cracks of Blair's purge.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Letting Michael Howard in wouldn't exactly have improved matters!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. Populus: Cameron 37, Clegg 36, Brown 27

[Anarcho-Socialist]

17. Angus Reid: Clegg 35, Cameron 32, Brown 23

[Anarcho-Socialist]

24. interesting. The RW rags say Cameron won, while the neutral regional papers say Clegg won

here in the north east.