More New Skillz!

Look what I went and did!

Into Libya

One of the few things I got out of my four years of university politics, along with heavy debt and absolutely no advantage in the jobs market, was the near-certainty that foreign intervention was almost always a foolish mistake.

Look at the history of English and American interventionism: the Empire, Vietnam, Afghanistan (each and every time) and, of course, unfolding in front of my eyes at the time, Iraq. A sorry set of sorties, it has to be said. There are one or two that are more open to debate: World Wars 1 and 2, for example. Generally speaking, though, I'm a non-interventionist. It's about as firm a principle as I have.

I realise now, though, that it's easy to hold such a view when the evidence is so crashingly in your favour, as I believe it is in all the above cases. Right now, though, my "faith" in non-interventionism is being sorely tested by the unfolding events in Libya.

I certainly don't profess to be any sort of expert on north African politics, so was quite happy to blithely assume that Libya would go the way of Egypt and Tunisia before it - with the dictator being run out of town by the popular uprising of the masses. That's how it looked in the beginning here, too. The rebel forces were said to be sweeping through the coastal towns between their base, Benghazi, and Gaddafi's in the capital, Tripoli. There was even excited talk of Gaddafi throwing in the towel immediately and making for the presumably safer haven of Venezuela.

Clearly, though, talk was all it was. As I/we wrung our hands, Gaddafi's forces launched a brutal counter-offensive against the rebels, pushing them out of many of the towns they'd recently occupied/liberated with a view to launching a sustained assault on Benghazi itself. The previously triumphal talk turned to the bloodshed that would inevitably follow if and when Gaddafi's troops conquered that city for the Government. The rebel chief, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, claimed that such a victory for Gaddafi would lead to the deaths of 500,000 rebels.

That possibility was taken seriously, clearly, by the international community, because as I write we are now into the fourth night of UN-sanctioned NATO airstrikes on Gaddafi's forces. I hear that the NATO countries making the intervention are keen not to be seen as the air force of the rebels, but are merely levelling the playing field by knocking out much of Gaddafi's heavy armour (which the rebels lack the means to do themselves).

So, here we go again - military action overseas, where the UK's direct interests aren't threatened. It certainly seems like a purely humanitarian intervention. That's good news, because the Muslim world has very few honourable Western interventions to bring to mind when contemplating extremism.

I have to admit, against my stated principles, a significant part of my was thrilled when the UN passed the resolution that sanctioned this intervention. As the Times journalist (and noted interventionist) David Aaronovitch tweeted before the decision to intervene was made "I fear that we're about to see the reality of non-intervention before our eyes in Libya". The bloody crushing of the supposed Arab Spring by Gaddafi's forces was an awful prospect.

When push comes to shove, I probably still wouldn't have made the decision to intervene were it up to me (ha!), but, now that someone else has taken the responsibility on themselves, I really, truly hope it all goes to plan.

It all starts with a leak...

Generally speaking, my apathy knows no bounds, but just occasionally I am shaken out of my docility by something exciting. The Wikileaks vs Governments skirmish seems to have done just that.

I haven't read the leaked documents in anything like enough detail to state with any degree of certainty whether or not they do indeed, as Wikileaks's legion of critics suggest, endanger the lives of those people named or detailed within them (although Julian Assange has claimed that, to his or anyone's knowledge, there have been no deaths whatsoever as a result of the leaks). The libertarian within me quite likes the spotlight the leaks have shone on the activities of governments (and particularly the US) around the world, though. From what I have seen, a fair proportion of the activity detailed in the cables is, at the very least, embarrassing and, at the worst, pretty appalling.

As I say, though, without really taking a view on whether the leaks are a good thing or not, I am still fascinated and horrified in equal measure by the reaction of governments around the world to Wikileaks and its enigmatic Editor in Chief, Mr Assange. With Assange's arrest on rape charges this morning, and the string of organisations (including high profile private companies like Visa, Mastercard and PayPal) pulling various plugs on Wikileaks, it certainly looks like a concerted campaign is being waged by world governments against the organisation. In Wikileaks's corner is a group of "hacktivists", known collectively as Anonymous, who are carrying out cyber-attacks on the organisations that would put and end to Wikileaks's activities.

I can't help but think that the genie is already out of the bottle, though. Even if the powers that be succeed in muzzling Assange and Wikileaks, the technology that enabled the interception of the previously-secure diplomatic cables, and that makes it possible to spread the information contained within those cables far and wide, already exists.

Wikileaks may have made foreign policy as we know it (or don't, as it seems) unviable. That is, at the least, a fascinating development and one that deserves closer study than this nincompoop is usually capable of.

Update - Tango down. Anonymous knocks out Mastercard's website. Lovely stuff.

Update II - Can I just dismiss a particularly absurd notion that seems to be doing the rounds at the moment?

Repeat after me: just because Julian Assange is in favour of government leaks, doesn’t mean he’s a hypocrite for wanting to keep his own affairs a secret.

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, he’s not in favour of total transparency, for everyone, all the time. He’s in favour of transparency from public, not private, institutions. Governments, then. Not individuals. Not companies, either.

That’s the difference between, to go all American for a sec, liberals and libertarians. The former is concerned with the behavior of, well, everyone. The latter is concerned with governments, full-stop.

I’ve no idea whether Assange considers himself a liberal, a libertarian, or whatever. His ideas are perfectly consistent, though. Hypocrite, at least on this, is he none.

Things what blow my tiny mind

I didn't even know this was possible back then.

Back with a whimper

This is funny. I mainly uploaded it just to see if I can embed videos, though. Turns out I can! Enjoy this one.

Dickheads are Cool

This is more or less the greatest video of all time...

Not in My Name

This post has been delayed quite significantly by the occurrence of World Cup games every flipping evening. Apologies. I couldn't not watch, though. I love football.

I don't love England (the football team), though. This World Cup has been the first one where I haven't supported the Three Lions (excepting those times when they failed to qualify at all). In fact, I not only haven't supported them, I haven't even watched them play, which has on occasion meant going quite considerably out of my way. My decision not to join my countrymen in supporting “our boys” has gone down pretty poorly with my friends, too. Going for a kip during England's opening match against the USA was a particularly unpopular move.

I've got my reasons, though, by jove. These are they:

1. Loathsome people – especially in the team. I can't go from detesting the very sight of John Terry and Ashley Cole on a weekly basis to cheering for them for a month every two years. It feels weird, two-faced and conviction-less (the last of which I certainly am not).

It's not just the players, though, if I'm honest. It's (some of) the fans, too. They're loud, obnoxious, boorish and sun-burnt. I'm only one of those things, I fondly believe. A large and vocal element of them are basically horrible. I don't want to be associated with them and they put me off. Some people might think that's snobbery, but I don't really agree. Surely I'm allowed to find some people, well, just unpleasant? I wouldn't support the estate agent industry, either, were I in it. This metaphor is confusing and I want out.

2. Patriotism and the last refuge of the scoundrel – isn't actually the best quote on the subject. That award goes to George Bernard Shaw for “patriotism is the belief your country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it”. It's patent nonsense and I don't feel much/any of it. It's almost totally arbitrary where you're born and I don't think the UK's such a screaming big deal anyway. Not for me.

3. Solidarity with my ma – who is only the most prominent (to me) reminder that not everyone likes being invaded by football every time an international tournament rolls around. It's not just internationals, too. The Premiership has grown to monstrous proportions and consumes ever more of our lives, football lover or not. These people are English too, aren't they?

Really, supporting anything is about caring for and relating to it. I'm not fussed in the slightest whether England ever manage to string passes together and I just don't feel part of the whole thing. It's not them, it's me. What the devil's wrong with that?

Waking Up to a Massive Election - Part II

Sorry for the pause.

Where was I? Oh yes:

The day(s)

May 6th was run with all the competence you'd expect of a banana republic holding it's first election, not the cradle of parliamentary democracy. I'm not one to judge anyone when it comes to administration, though, so let's move on. Turnout, at about 65%, was slightly up from last time, but fell well short of the 70% the more optimistic analysts were predicting. Would (relatively speaking) so many people have bothered if we hadn't had a) the debates, b) a supposedly "viable" third party to vote for and c) a hung parliament? I doubt it. I think we were heading for a record-breakingly low turnout. Maybe I'm wrong, though. It has been known.

I stayed up to watch until about 1am, but it became clear at that point that nothing was going to be decided soon. In fact, it wasn't decided for several days. Parliament was hung, as we all know, and the three main parties began schmoozing each other in earnest, trying to find a majority. In the end, the Lib Dems got into bed with the Tories, giving them a majority of the seats in the Commons. I have to say, I found the wheeling-dealing fascinating to "watch". I say watch, but I really mean wait outside a room furiously speculating about what's going on inside until the door opens and a man in a suit tells you how you're going to be ruled for the next 5 years. It wasn't supposed to be like this. In this hyper-democratic age, of Twitter, Google and Wikipedia, we aren't supposed to find this sort of thing interesting anymore. But we (or at least I) did, I have to admit.

Anyway, the negotiations swung hither and thither (we think), but as I said above, the end result was some kind of bastard Clameron, Cleggaron, Libcon, Con-dem-nation arrangement, where the Tories dropped the nasty stuff from their manifesto, picked up the choicest (cheapest and most popular) bits of the Libs' manifesto, gave a few cabinet seats and promised to stop being mean and talking over Nick Clegg at PMQs, and got the majority they were looking for. Some people have said since that this coalition was actually preferable to Cameron than getting a narrow Tory majority of his very own, as this way he gets to rout the right wing of his party and bolster the liberal side that he possibly mistakenly sees himself on. If that's right, it could be great, as we'll see a much less nasty Tory party, but it'll be awful for the Labour party, as the centre ground is claimed for the blues, possibly permanently.

I've heard plenty of people since the agreement was made calling Nick Clegg a "sell out", for getting into bed with the Tories. I've also heard people say that the Tories conceded too much to the Libs in the negotiations. I think both accusations are nonsense, to be honest. I really can't see that Clegg had any option but to go with the Tories. He'd been saying all through the campaign that he'd support the party with the most seats and votes and, well, here it was. He couldn't really go back on himself. A Lib-Lab coalition would have looked like a coup d'etat, basically. Additionally, the maths wasn't there for Lib-Lab. They would have needed every single rebellious backbencher to walk in lockstep with the party leadership, as well as the single, solitary Green member and a ragbag of assorted nationalists. It wasn't going to happen.

And I'm glad, truthfully. Not that the Tories are in government - that's a bit of a blow - but if you'd offered me Labour out (I really do think they deserved the kicking they got for so many of the decisions they made over the last 10 years), a liberal voice in government, some (if not all - the Libs just didn't have enough votes or seats to demand PR) political reform and coalition (weak) government a few months ago, I'd have snapped your hand off. Let's see how this one goes.

Waking Up to a Massive Election - Part I

Phew! That was exhausting, wasn't it? In spite of myself, I've been pretty captivated by recent proceedings. Maybe I'm not so jaded and cynical after all?

As promised previously, here are my thoughts on the whole shebang:

The campaigns

Were strangely muted, I thought. They would have passed under the national radar almost completely had it not been for the "innovation" (that they've had elsewhere for upwards of half a century) of TV debates. They're a mixed bag, certainly, but they drew surprisingly large audiences and brought the parties' ideas to whole new audiences. I'm pretty sure that many (most?) of the people that watched the first debate, for instance, had never seen or heard of Nick Clegg. For that reason, the Lib Dems got the most out of the debating thang (or so we thought, before we saw the results). Why Cameron and Brown agreed to have the Libs in them is still beyond me. They (possibly correctly?) misunderestimated the yellow peril big time.

My main concern with the debates is that they take us one step further down the line to presidentialism (which would be fine, but that we simply do not have that system here. Maybe we should, but that's another debate). Another issue I have with them is that they're pretty rubbish as information sources go. I for one was spending all my time trying to "score" the leaders' performances, rather than listening to what they had to say (which was largely drivel, to be fair to me). The parallels with boxing were incredible. People were actually talking about "knockout blows" and "points victories", an effect that was only heightened by the other politicians' wildly biased "interpretations" afterwards - all declaring their man to be the winner. Silly stuff. Such concerns are largely irrelevant, though (my views? Irrelevant? I hear you splutter), as leaders' debates are here to stay. You can't put the democratic genie back in the bottle (happily). Anyone complaining about them now is pissing in the wind, I'm afraid.

To vote, or not to vote?

As you may be aware, I am, customarily, a non-voter. I've given all my reasons here before, but, basically, it's partly about not making a difference and partly about not being interested in choosing between a douche and a turd. This time, though (my first time since making said resolution, rather embarrassingly), I crumbled. It was after the first debate. I'm a lot close to the Lib Dems, politically, than the other two. Part of the reason I wasn't planning to vote for them this time is that I assumed (correctly, as it happened) that they had no chance of, y'know, winning. That debate and particularly the Cleggmania that followed it, led me to think otherwise. Silly man. It's clear, now, that the Libs will never get a majority under First Past the Post (not that their, what, 23% of the vote would have won under any system). Cleggmania, in hindsight, was a case of the media getting ahead of themselves, but it was based on solid(ish) numbers of viewers that took to Clegg, due to his masterclass in not being the other two. I think people will look back and see this election as born of the expenses scandal. Nobody trusts politicians and as soon as the novelty wore off and people realised Clegg was one, they left him at the altar. Naughty electorate. Such a tease.

3rd Leaders' Debate III

21.52 - Dave had "a big argument with someone on the street about special schools the other day". He reckons he's in favour of them, but I'm not buying that. They're all trying to demonstrate their "passion" for education. Except Gordon, of course, who's pathologically incapable of displaying passion for anything other than tax credits, so opts simply to state it: "I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT SCHOOLS".

21.57 - Final statements. Dave "loves this country" and wants to back "values", "work" and "safety". So far, so Tory. There's "something we need to know" about him, though. He once met a black man!

22.00 - Gordon suggests that the Libs will ally with the Tories again. That'll be the line, I suppose. Clegg says the usual, pretty well, though.

This is extremely tough to call. They all did okay, there were no clear winners and noone dropped any clangers, though Clegg did take a horrible kicking on immigration. Cameron probably shaded it, I'd say. 1. Cameron, 2. Clegg, 3. Brown, I reckon. It's very marginal, though, so who the hell knows (my soothsaying confidence took a beating after calling it wrong last week). Let's see.

3rd Leaders' Debate II

9.00 - Brown comes out for the Tobin Tax, interestingly (assuming he can get the rest of the world on side, internationalist that he is).

9.01 - Dave talks about "Fred the Shred" and it's 2008. Clegg's flying here. He's talking complete bollocks, of course, but he's doing so with style. He's just good at this, simple as that.

9.03 - Dave goes after Wonderboy for his support for joining the Euro. Clegg shrugs it off pretty well, but he's on dangerous ground in this country, with it's wide-spread Euroscepticism.

9.07 - The questioner wants us to go back to the 19th Century and "make things" again. "We can't all work in shops and offices." Why the hell not? Clegg is "proud of Sheffield's industrial heritage", somewhat nauseatingly.

9.09 - Dave manages to remember the questioner's name. Yet another play from the yellow handbook. Do him and Gordon even have their own tactics?

9.10 - There's been a surprising lack of sweating in these debates thus far, but Clegg is doing his level best to address that. Maybe it's the lights.

9.12 - Dave says that "Gordon doesn't seem to know the difference between the Government and the economy". He's said it twice now. I think there's something in that, but that's just me. They're all pointing to green jobs as the future of the British economy.

21.17 - We're off the economy and Dimbleby plugs everything the BBC plans to do over the next 40 years.

21.18 - We're on to immigration, though, sadly. Think I'll put the kettle on.

21.19 - Dave sounds unbelievably posh when he says "roll" (as in "we need to control immigration"). Really surprised his advisors haven't stamped that one out.

21.21 - Dimbleby repeats and refocuses the audience's questions, as per Adam Boulton last week. Good stuff.

21.23 - Dave brings up the Lib Dems' immigration amnesty, which is Clegg's single weakest point. He does good work, though, by pointing out the dishonesty in pretending that immigration is a simple, easily solved issue. Gordon "agrees with Cameron", unsurprisingly. He bashes Clegg from the other side and it's assassination. It's still going on. I want none of this.

21.30 - Mercifully, we're off immigration. Housing next. Who's going to promise me one? All of them. Terrific!

21.33 - The Beeb has a funky purple graphic behind the leaders, which riffs nicely off Gordon's tie. Policy is for other people.

21.36 - Benefit abuse. I live in the wrong country, I really do. Nick Clegg "believes in work", courageously.

21.38 - Brown's policy is "no life on the dole". Lovely stuff. He "believes in work too". Who the hell would'a thunk it?

21.46 - Education and opportunities for poor kids. Gordon answers strongly on social mobility. Dave praises teachers. Yuk. The Conservatives seem to have only noticed poverty in the last few weeks, but still have the audacity to lecture Labour on it. Ridiculous.

3rd Leaders' Debate

The third and final debate. It's on the economy and it kicks off at 8.30. Let's be havin' ya.

Incidentally, I just heard Jon Snow saying how the debates have sucked the life out of ordinary campaigning. He's right, I suppose. The debates have utterly overshadowed the usual electioneering shenanigans. I'll write up my thoughts about this whole debating thang shortly.

Right, here we go.

8.33 - Dave witters on about being "stuck in a rut", or somesuch. He means the economy, of course, not the Conservative Party.

8.34 - Clegg is in the middle again. That's a surprise. Why would the others let him have that for free? Have they learnt nothing about underestimating the yellow surge?

8.35 - Gordon faces his demons by saying "as you saw yesterday, I don't get it all right". You can teach humility, then.

8.36 - If there was ever a debate topic for Gordon, though, it's this one. He simply must win this one. Behind in every poll, he needs a "game-changer", apparently.

8.38 - Dimbleby (for it is he, of course) has a deeply wacky floral tie. The candidates have stuck with the slightly weird party colour scheme, for some reason. Maybe it's one of the fabled 76 debate rules.

8.41 - Almost unbelievably, Dave mentions Mothercare again. That's all three debates. Great PR for them. Utterly whorish from Cameron (what the hell was I expecting?).

8.42 - Gordon "smiles" and my housemates cringe as one.

8.44 - Gordon and Dave are in PMQs mode. They're crossing swords with abandon, which always goes down badly with the public.

8.45 - This one's in the Great Hall at the University of Birmingham. It's gorgeous. No debates in London, eh? It does have the dubious honour of playing host to these guys for the next 4-5 years, I suppose, so fair's fair.

8.47 - Audience question on the need to cut tax. Dave should be at home here, except that this is no time for anyone to be cutting taxes. Clegg remembers the questioner's name and is rewarded with an earnest "listening" look. He goes for the bankers, as always, which goes down pretty well.

8.50 - Gordon rather pointedly says that he would "never go into alliance with the Conservatives" (not that he'd be asked), which is an indirect kick at Clegg.

8.52 - Gordon and Clegg are both giving Dave a kicking for wanting to cut inheritance tax. Dave calls it "desperate stuff".

8.54 - Clegg pulls out his old "look at these two!" line. He makes his pre-planned, scripted attacks so much better than the other two.

8.58 - Dave says that he "agree's with Mr Obama's plan" for dealing with naughty bankers. Cracking bit of name dropping there.

2nd Leaders' Debate II

8.27 - Clegg gets a breather as we move on to climate change - where he should be strong. Sadly, though, he opts to make a slightly rubbish point about the need to tax air travel. Gordon goes for renewables and Dave picks the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Choose your weapon/hobbyhorse.

8.30 - Gordon Brown is terribly advised. Just drop the forced smiling. It ain't you. He also calls Clegg "anti-American", interestingly. Not sure what he's referring to, but he must have a point to make, as he's said it twice now. Dave gets "anti-European", for his part.

8.37 - Spicy question on whether the parties should distance themselves from the Pope in the light of his fruity views on homosexuality, AIDs, sex scandals in the church and pretty much everything else. None of them are up for it, obviously, despite opposing his views. We're all bathing in the warm water of British tolerance.

8.44 - Clegg must be elated to be asked about his plan to restore faith in politics. What the hell has that got to do with foreign affairs, though? Gordon basically begs the audience to vote for someone, anyone (him). Dave wants to cut the cost of politics, which we heard last week. He also mentions open primaries, which the Tories have taken the lead on (I think). Clegg strongly suggests that we all "get stuck in" in this election. It's almost as if low turnouts favour the Tories...

8.51 - My housemate puts me out of my misery by explaining that we've moved onto general issues and away from foreign affairs, which explains a lot.

8.52 - Dave tries to prevent Clegg from "getting on a pedestal" about expenses. Clegg concedes that he's "no angel". Ouch.

8.54 - An OAP asks whether the leaders think that £59 is a fair weekly pension. None of them think it's enough. Gordon points out that the questioner isn't getting all her entitlements, to use an Americanism, which is so like him ("the money is there if you can only navigate my labyrinth!"). Dave does pretty well by explaining exactly how he plans (to afford) to raise the figure. They're all doing their best "earnest" faces. This is much closer than last week.

9.05 - Is coalition government the way forward? Good question. Dave nods to bipartisanship, obviously, but also warns of the terrible dangers of a hung Parliament. You thought Dave liked bipartisanship? Clegg loves bipartisanship. He also declares that "we need a Committee for Financial Stability". Gordon points out that we already have one, actually. Doh.

9.08 - Adam Boulton is moderating pretty well. He seems more relaxed than ITV's man last week, who actually shouted the leaders' names to get them to yield the floor to each other. Boulton's also re-phrasing the questions that they fail to answer. Excellent work.

21.11 - Dave mentions Mothercare again. You don't think he's chasing the Soccer Mom vote, do you? Shameless. We're on the banking system. Clegg's bashing away, as he likes to do. Dave tries to joke with the audience about the now fabled "other two" bickering. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I suppose, so Clegg should feel pretty good right now.

21.15 - Immigration, which could be another banana skin for Clegg. His immigration "amnesty" might be eminently sensible, but will not play well with the public, sadly. Gordon instantly mentions it and I'm basically a genius. Clegg, bravely, wants to target the criminal gangs that prey on illegal immigrants, rather than the aliens themselves. I agree with him and wish the rest of the country did too, but I reckon he could founder upon this here rock. Gordon throws away any (remote) chance he had of me voting for him by saying that he's "deeply concerned" about "Nick's" policy. To hell with him and his cowardly politics.

9.26 - Closing statements and Gordon says "the buck stops here. If I'm in the job, you're in". Seriously, what does that even mean? Gordon says that Dave's a "threat to the economy" and Clegg's a "threat to our security". The cameraman's a Tory, because we're zooming in (uncomfortably closely) on Dave's face. Stop it. Don't nobody need to see that. Clegg's closing is better than last week, but I think he's (narrowly) lost tonight. I score it 1. Cameron 2. Brown and 3. Clegg. I don't think it's been overwhelming, but might this be the end of the yellow surge?

2nd Leaders' Debate

Here we go again. This one's on foreign affairs.

8.02 - Gordon actually says "like me or not, but I know how to do the job".

8.03 - All three are doing what Clegg did to good effect in the first debate - looking directly (spookily?) into the camera. Clegg's in the middle this time, which is a nice place to be and looks terribly prime ministerial.

8.05 - The most Bristolian man in the world (the debate is in Bristol, to be fair) says he "can't see the point in being in Europe". Noone show him a map. Dave (I simply can't bear to call him Cam anymore), quite boldly, comes out as wanting to stay in the Union. The other two sing the same tune ("it's flawed, but we basically need it").

8.09 - Dave wins the hotly contested nicest tie competition.

8.10 - Gordon's giving Dave a kicking for his party's eccentricity on the subject. Dave replies, calling Gordon and Clegg "the other two", which was one of Clegg's most frequent refrains in the first debate. There's been some frantic coaching before this one.

8.14 - Gordon's at the old "the other two are squabbling like children" now. Shameless robbery of Clegg, but I suppose it was to be expected.

8.24 - Dave takes us into Trident territory. This could be rough for Clegg. Gordon directly advises Nick to "get real". Dave shocks himself by saying that he "agrees with Gordon". Doubleteam.

8.15 - The 2nd most Bristolian man in the world asks if the UK would go into another war along the same lines as the one in Afghanistan. They're all in a slightly difficult position, having voted for the Afghan War, but there are plenty of criticisms to safely make, which they all duly do.

8.18 - The inevitable troops love-in is just around the corner, I just know it. I feel pre-nauseous.

8.20 - I've been wondering whether Clegg will stick to Lib Dem policy on Trident, amongst other things, or whether he'll try to hide behind the "outsider" persona. He's not dodging the issues, though, to be fair to him.

8.21 - They're all on about their various photo ops in Afghanistan and their admiration for "our boys" out there and I want to shoot myself, I really do.

Just Add Hot Water

To this beauty.

As Predicted

Sadly.

The Leaders' Debate III

21.45 - My speech therapist housemate points out that the weird, goldfish-like mouth movements Gordon makes are in response to a speech impediment. He's doing pretty well against some fairly significant natural disadvantages, in fairness.

21.47 - Clegg says that "this is a phoney debate". You said it, mate. He's clearly winning, though. Cam looks decent too. Gordon hasn't done awfully, but he probably needed to do better than that. I reckon Cam just needs to play it safe and not drop the ball in order to win. Maybe the Libs (with a hung Parliament) are the biggest threat to him now? I wonder if he'll start aiming for them in the weeks ahead?

21.52 - Final question is on care for the elderly. Clegg suggests that "all the parties get together on this one", meaninglessly. Gordon's using his caring voice. Eww! He should take this one though. He can make spending promises with the best of them. Cameron does disappointingly well by lionising carers. Clegg's forced to join the eulogy. They're all being terribly serious.

22.01 - In closing, Clegg goes back to his old vs new politics shtick. My old buddy change gets his tummy tickled too. Brown goes economic, obviously. He also tries to make a joke, with predictably cringe-worthy results. Cameron will personally be behind you in your business. Scary!

In conclusion, as they all press the flesh, it looked like 1. Clegg 2. Cameron 3. Brown to me. No one dropped any major clangers. Great night for the Libs, but to what end?

The Leaders' Debate II

8.58 - Audience question about expenses. Cam calls it a "horrendous episode". Gordon was "shocked and sickened", apparently. You didn't expect anything else, did you? Cam suggests "cutting the size of politics", which may go down fairly well, I imagine.

21.02 - Clegg knows he's on the firmest ground here, as he's being making noises about political reform for a long time. Cam basically has nothing here, but does make the point that Labour have had 13 years to make reforms if they wanted them.

21.05 - Cam wants to pick "Nick" up on what he's said, because there's "a slight danger of a holier than though attitude". To be fair, it is good to see the Libs get a grilling for once, much as they might have the best lines on this.

21.07 Cam makes a repulsive "whoops" face when Clegg doesn't answer a question about some old financial scandal. He didn't even hear it, to be fair to him.

21.09 - Schools. Some posho asks what they'll do to "improve education". So general, so easy to answer. Poor question. He was a kid, though, to be fair. I'm in a fair mood tonight.

21.11 - Cam (so sorry to be calling him that - it's just quick to type) harps on about cutting bureaucracy and quangos, not for the first time. He also mentions discipline, ffs. C'mon , where are these modern Tories I keep hearing about?

21.15 - Cam's just as smooth as ever. Clegg's actually doing pretty well. He appears pretty likeable anyway (whatever that's worth). Brown's smirking weirdly and basically having a bit of a shocker. My housemate reckons Brown's playing it tactically - being nice to Clegg and avoiding engaging with Cam. Wants the Liberals' support, you see.

21.20 - We're on to the economy. I'm surprised it took us this long, as this is supposed to be the biggest issue in this election. Campaign speeches ahoy!

21. 24 - Clegg's all about being "straight" with us, thankfully. The other two are obviously lying then. Clegg is pulling "oh, you two" faces at every opportunity. He's so different! Don't you believe it?

21.28 - Brown's forced smiles are even more embarrassing than his grimaces. He looks insane. He has a nice tie though. I notice such things. I'm not ashamed of it.

21.30 - Clegg keeps talking about "politicians" like they're other people. I do like him and he's doing quite well tonight, but I can't see how you can change the system from inside it (unless you're far enough inside it to, y'know, win).

21.32 - We have now arrived at Platitude Central - the armed forces. They're all fans. Who knew?

21.35 - Clegg keeps mentioning Sheffield (part of which is his constituency), weirdly. The others haven't referred to their constituencies. Maybe Cam is ashamed of Witney. Clegg clearly has no such feelings about his. It's in the North, you know. I might be reading too much into this.

21.39 - Ah, Trident renewal. Lonely ol' Clegg is the only one against it, sadly. Clegg's left hand is in his pocket. Nonchalant, or effected? I report, you decide. More importantly, is it effected, or affected? Fingers crossed.

21.43 - The NHS. Cam makes a massive deal about being a massive fan. This is the new Tories, I suppose. Lies, basically. Not to be cynical...

The Leaders' Debate

Hold on to your seats. Three charlatans are about to stage a press conference where they make speeches written by other people and read from an auto-cue. I'll try to contain my cynicism if you try to contain your excitement.

The first ever (in this country) leaders' debate is about to kick off. Let's blog.

8.34 - The stage looks utterly budget. Clegg has a ludicrously shiny tie. He speaks first. Something from his campaign speech about the "old politics" and the opportunity to usher in the new by voting for the Lib Dems.

8.35 - Gordon says that the only thing that matters is the economy and our need to avoid a "double-dip" recession.

8.36 - Cameron completes the opening speeches by reaching into his own campaign mantras. They're all emphasising the themes that suit them, obviously. Cameron said, um, something...

8.37 - Audience question about immigration.

8.39 - Cam thinks there's just "too much", unsurprisingly.

8.40 - They all make the argument that immigration is good ("we're in favour of darkies"), but that we need "tough, new" controls.

8.41 - Gordon claims immigration is actually falling.

8.42 - Cam calls the immigration system "out of control".

8.43 - Clegg sensibly mentions two popular areas of immigration: football and the NHS.

8.45 - First bit of sword-crossing from the leaders. This is going fast. Really having trouble keeping up with this. Gives me something to do other than listen to the debate, though, thankfully.

8.46 - Clegg suggests a regional immigration system, interestingly (sort of).

8.48 - On to crime. Who's got a magic bullet? Not the Gov, says Cam. He tells a "moving" story about a victim of crime. He sounds very, very old Tory on this.

8.49 - Nick Clegg in support for Police shock. He also reminds us that he's an MP. Who the hell didn't know that? People with actual votes? Christ.

8.51 - Ah, yes. Cam blames all our problems on drugs. So progressive.

8.52 - Clegg describes British prisons as "colleges of crime", which is a good line. Nice to hear a politician being even slightly critical of prisons.

8.54 - Clegg basically makes the same point again. Perhaps I'm being harsh here, but it looks like he had a mental blank.

8.55 - Gordon "humanises" himself with a lame and laboured joke about the Tories' election posters.