But it will be a fantastic way to try and ensure the public understands what is on offer, even if it doesn’t change their vote. I’d argue this is less about those that know something and more about those that think that there is no difference between the three and that voting is pointless. If off the back of it those types of people decide to make a stand and vote too, then great.

I’m with Dave on this, with the added (or at least not yet stated) proviso, that I have no wish to elect a president, so would prefer to see my local candidates to represent me debating (no husting announced that I’ve seen).

“Arguably, it is the left that loses most from a culture in which big ideas are devalued to the point where they have to be delivered as television soundbites, if they are not to be forgotten about completely. It is striking that Labour has often done best in climates in which people have read books.”

I’m not sure on this – surely it is all philosophies other than reactionism (traditionally more likely to be Conservative, but I’d say more Labour at the moment) or populism (all three major parties) that suffer. Not sure what you mean Labour has done best in climates in which people have read books though; however, the current government’s education policies may be blatantly suicidal in this light…

But it will be a fantastic way to try and ensure the public understands what is on offer

How? Are we really to believe that there might actually be some substantive policy discussion? In a TV debate? During an election? Pull the other one…

(And even if, by some bizarre freak of circumstance, there actually is some discussion of actual policy, the odds of any of it surviving the transition to government are so close to zero as to be irrelevant.)

They will say whatever bullshit they think makes them look good, and whichever one manages to get elected will then proceed to do whatever the fuck they feel like / can get away with. “What is on offer” is a collection of some of the finest, most shameless liars and conmen ever assembled.

Is this your first time or something?

Five-o’clock shadow didn’t cost Nixon the Presidency – he’d just come out of hospital after getting an infection in a wound on his knee. And then he refused make-up. He looked pallid and tired.

Last night’s Vote Now Show had a great explanation – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ryknq/The_Vote_Now_Show_Episode_3/

A TV debate may be no way to decide an election (I agree, though I don’t think the format is entirely without merit), but then, what is?

None of the mainstream parties has had any ‘principles’ for 15 years, or has any substantively different policies on anything important… They propose tinkering at the edges of things – bureaucratically and intellectually masturbating, whilst (the metaphorical) Rome burns.

The closest you get to a “radical” idea is the Lib Dems electoral reform, which should have been implemented decades ago.

It’s in HD. You’ll actually see Brown’s jawbone moving beneath his skin.

Bet Cameron still looks like a freshly skinned potato.

Oh dont be such a boring old fart, Dave Osler.

NEWSFLASH!

The debates are not the sole basis for people’s vote but one of the many sources of information for the electorate.

True
But at least it’s better than the old method.
Rupert, Sun of the Earl of warwick (the kingmaker) to annoint who he thinks should be the next PM