The Debate - reflections from the radio.

I'm back as it doesn't look like icelandic volcanos are going to let me go anywhere for the next day or so at least. The say that in the first ever televised presidentuial debate in the States, people who listened on the radio thought Noxon had won over Kennedy. However, those watching on TV saw a pale, sweating Nixon and confident, tanned Kennedy and had the opposite impression. Seeing how much polls have Clegg as having won by last night, I wonder if something similar happened - he looked the most confident (of course, there's also the factor of being the least known he had the most to gain). But listening to it, I thought there wasn't much difference between them. Clegg came out marginally on top, but really all three were fairly uninspiring and lacking in a clear vision on how to solve the deficit and other problems. I'm also incereasingly dismayed at how much all three are letting the BNP and their ilk pull them in terms of policy on immigration. I was probably looking for Clegg to seal the deal with me and confirm me in my voting intentions. He didn't, although I am possibly leaning slightly more that way.

Taking them leader by leader:

Nick Clegg - for me where he really shone was the two times (on the deficit and care for the elderly) he said that whoever wins the election, all parties should get together to work out of a solution as they all had ideas, but none had the complete answer by themself. These were the only times he really seemed to offer something different to me. I thought he was also strong on trident, smaller classes and rehabilitating young offenders. But for me, what he really needs to do next time is stop telling us how different he is from the others and actually demonstrate it. Similarly, he needs to stop telling us how straight and honest he is and actually demonstrate it.

Gordon Brown - it was almost comical how much he tried and failed to co-opt Clegg. He was left sounding like a failed lover. It also leaves him in the difficult position of not really be able to attack Clegg too much in the upcoming debates. Other than that, he came across to me as solid but uninspired, he had a little more substance than the other two, but nothing to grab hold of and excite you.

David Cameron - came across the one way I wasn't expecting him to - he sounded bland. Not unreasonable but completely uncompelling. I think that whilst he may have had a point about Clegg's holier than thou attitude, his attack on the Lib Dems finances was misplaced and backfired. He's probably lost the most ground in the whole thing and lost any momentum the tories may have gained from their manifsto launch.

In general I thought they all got their points across, but on the issues nobody really won or compelled. Most people will have come away with exactly the same views on say, the NI rise, as they went in with. So the main difference the debate will have made is raising Clegg's profile and putting him on an equal footing with the others.

Well I say an equal footing - just to see how uneven the system is, I put into one of the seat predictors what would happen if all the parties got exactly equal shares of the vote, say 30% each - the results - Labour get just over 300 seats, the tories over 200 and the Lib Dems exactly 100 - hardly a level playing field is it?