Will you be watching the leaders' TV debate?

No. As I'll be voting for UKIP, why would I want too?

This would be a far better debate if they asked the BNP nick griffon first then allow the same amount of time +1 minute for each of the other party leaders to answer. They would get through so many questions and force them to answer instead of 5 minutes drivel with no actual answer

As I don't live in UK probably not lol, though I do have an interest in politics as a whole.
Just read about about Labours latest stunt parading 2 Tory Activists who left their party over Gay rights and how the Tories haven't changed, how desperate of Labour from what I've seen and read recently they are becoming very negative and using "smear tactics" a lot ,hope voters in UK can see through that.

No.

Apart from the fact that I do not have a licence so can't watch it, I vote for policies and party (or I would like to, if the parties addressed my issues), not the leaders' ability to debate in a TV show.

I feel that I should. ( don't ask why ) But seeing three blokes all promising the earth and spluttering at each other might well bring on an attack of the vapours. ( As does some of the over-long comments now appearing on HYS.)

Um, no.

I am not voting for any party leader, as none of them is standing as a candidate in my constituency, so there is little point in wasting any air time for this. The open debates we get from Question Time and Any Questions has nicely covered party politics for years, and a brief read of the manifestos (as available) has convinced me that my voting intentions do not need to change.

The underlying problem with this concept is that only the three largest parties are getting this treatment. Why can we not have the leaders/chancellors/home secretaries etc of all parties fielding candidates in most constituencies - I'd love to hear what the Green Party, BNP, UKIP, Socialist Labour etc have to say on things. Might not like their opinions, but I'd rather hear them aired and countered in the mass media!

What is the point - it will only be a slagging match

Nope. What's the point - I won't believe a single word they say. It's about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

I already know what these people are going to say, so the the broadcast will amount to little more than a beauty contest in which none of the contestants are beautiful.

Let's wait & see. 1st ever televised PM debate huh. Must be a historical treasure!

What time is Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin on?

No, I hope all 3 leaders lose their seat. They come from a corrupt Parliament, where they headed corrupt MP's. They should not be standing for office again.

I'll be pleasently suprised if they don't end up just waffling on as they normally do, instead of answering the question, just telling you that the other party would be worse.

Another annoying thing they do a lot is list things in long form, for example:
We're improving funding for A
We're improving funding for B
We're improving funding for C
We're improving funding for D
Why not just speed things up and say A, B, C, and D.
They're trying to ram the phrase 'we're improving funding' into our minds, but we can see through such a cheap trick, and it's actually patronising and annoying.

I'll be watching. I want to see how professional liars work.

Then I'll vote UKIP.

I`ll probably watch it - more out of curiosity than anything else.
Will they answer questions truthfully? probably not. Will they answer questions without going on a roundabout journey? I doubt it.

If PMQ`s is anything to go by, then it will simply be another episode of the Muppets.

Yes, I shall be watching and it will be an interesting test of the party leaders. I do share Cameron's concern about eight questions in ninety minutes, but conversely one could argue that this might force the leaders to provide more detailed answers and not the usual throw away obfuscations that they try to get away with when being interviewed.
My main concern is that it will degenerate into a series of monologues without the active intervention of the host interviewer. If there is no-one who has the mandate to come back at them and say 'cut the b******t, now answer the question', who knows how much drivel we will be subjected to.

8 questions in 90 minutes - I don't see a problem there.

For example:

1) Are you going to raise taxes ?
2) Are you going to cut public sector jobs ?
3) Are you going to stop immigration ?
4) Are you going to reform public sector pensions ?
5) Are you going to give the UK's citizens a vote on the EU ?
6) Are you going to stop releasing criminals early ?
7) Are you going to stop paying benefits to the workshy ?
8) Are you going to withdraw out troops from Iraq and Afghanistan ?

That's 8 questions, they all require a "yes" or "no" answer. How is that going to three people 90 minutes to answer ? And if it does take 90 minutes then that just shows us all what is wrong with politics in the UK ( i.e. politicians wont give a straight yes or no answer ).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No. There seems to be no real democracy in this country - if there were UKIP, Greens and BNP would be involved in this debate.How come if the BBC is meant to be impartial - it's only Labour, Tory and Liberal leaders in the debate. One can only conclude that the BBC seems not to be impartial and seems to be anti democratic force in UK broadcasting.

I wouldn't miss it for the world - I like a good laugh! I can't wait to see how Gordon makes a complete fool of himself even though the format has been designed to help him out as much as possible.

When the contestants have had notice of the questions being asked What is the point.

Set questions with set answers consisting of 'promises' in amongst the waffle and drival finishing up by slagging of the other two contestants.

You do not improve your standing by hiding behind the percieved faults of others.

I will be watching until the end of the first question. When none of them have answered simply, openly and honestly, along with millions of other viewers I will switch off and then go to the pub.

I guarantee that:

1) Brown will tell us what the Tories and Lib Dems are going to do
2) Cameron will tell us all about Labour and the Lib Dems
3) Clegg will tell us what to expect from the Tories and Labour

None of them will tell us what THEY are going to do because they haven't got a clue. No intellect - no solutions!

No! I think we've heard what we need to hear, seen what we need see. Hard as it is, this is about what WE believe in. We will be charmed and lots of promises will be made - perhaps in all sincerity; but the volatile state of the economy, the fragility of world affairs in general mean that change and recovery will depend on kore than promises.

No. They're not going to change my mind and I've got no time for such American Style "politics lite".

No way. I will not be voting for these parties. This is not a fair debate considering there are a lot of parties and opinions that will not be aired. This is a sham of democracy. Where are the SNP, Plaid Cyrmu, UKIP, BNP, Monster raving looney party etc. BBC this is a travesty of fairness.

A program dedicated to more of this question dodging and wordplay means nothing to me. I am already heartily sick of this campaign which seems to be primarily based on "Vote for us because the other party will ..." soundbites and promises which we all know will be subject to 'workarounds' once a party lies their way in.

I want plain speaking and clear promises. I know I won't get it from the three main parties.

" 3. At 4:42pm on 14 Apr 2010, Darrin wrote:
how desperate of Labour from what I've seen and read recently they are becoming very negative and using "smear tactics" a lot ,hope voters in UK can see through that "


Think you've got it wrong, the Tories have been doing far more critising, than Labour. Brown has been the target of relentless personal attack for months. The Cons have been in opposition for 13 years and have no new ideas or policies, the few they have change from day to day. Cameron has to read the script every time he speaks as he's not too sure what he should be saying from day to day

There is little point. Even if one of them could come up with a reason to vote for them it would make little difference due to the corrupt electoral system in this country. The winning party in 2/3rds of the seats are predictable, so the only votes that will decide the election are those of a couple of hundred thousand floating voters in a limited number of marginal constitutencies.
I think only these voters should be forced to watch the debate, and the rest of us then can get on with something a lot more important.

I was looking forward to the election campaign, but the "phoney war" has been going on for so long I'm a bit sick of it.
Nevertheless, I shall be watching the debates, although I will be voting for a party and not a leader.

I am sure they will be well prepared, not too critical of each other, present themselves as very responsible people and try to get an election winning soundbite across.
Perhaps one of them might become emotional and do a close up crying scene. Maybe all three will cry and show that they are only human. Hopefully they will tell us that they love their wives and children too.
But please BBC reporters don't tell us that anything significant will have been broadcast.
I will be thinking of those slap stick scenes of the three stooges, Shemp, Larry and Mo, where they poke each other in the eye and throw custard pies. Beat that.

No, I will not.For one reason only.

I am sick to death of TV reality shows. This one "I want to be prime minister" is about as low as the BBC has sunk so far. It brings the serious business,of choosing our MPs down to a "media fest" which imparts nothing.

A program discussing, how to fix, our broken democracy,is another matter.

The Problem the UK Political System, as it presently stands. Is that it is an evolved, unwritten non codified constitution. The system has been hi-jacked by the PARTIES, unionist, nationalist and everything in between. It holds parliament as sovereign, not the people.

The acceptability of the British Party System of government is quickly losing credibility in 21st century. Even in our unwritten constitution, one vote for each eligible citizen is inferred. But under the party system, party members have more. They vote for which candidates are put forward. They vote for who is to become Prime Minister. Some of these party members are not even eligible to vote.
The candidates’ only “competency to carry out the job description” being that they are members of that party and will carry out the policies of that party.

The only choice available, to the electorate, is which one of the parties. In recent years the choice has been BAD or WORSE.
The promised policies and legislative programme (manifesto) is not legally binding and contains no costing or time scale. It is almost never carried out.

Her Majesties Government Consists of
The Prime Minister
The political leader of the government, a post not created by act of Parliament nor mentioned in legal documents. It evolved and was manipulated, by the political parties into what we have to-day.
The modern day PM leads a political party. Is voted into the post, not by the House of Commons (the Legislature), or the electorate, but by his party colleagues and thus by a political party.
He then chooses the Executive (the Cabinet) from members of his party, not necessarily elected members of parliament. As leader of the Cabinet he wields, Executive and Legislative powers, many of which are “Royal Prerogative” and still legally vested in the Sovereign.
Hence one party has control over Her Majesties Government, both Legislative (MPs)
and Executive (Cabinet).For a term of five years.

Members of Parliament
The candidates, for the job of representing the electorate in parliament, are not vetted or selected by that electorate, but selected and put forward by the parties to represent the parties.
As the candidate are frequently completely unknown to them and have never made themselves available for questioning or consultation on the needs of the constituency they are to represent.
The choice of the electorate is therefore, which party to vote for, (based on the published manifestos)


This government is accountable to, Sovereign, Parliament, political party and LASTLEY to the ELECTORATE, supposedly by virtue of a majority of seats (MPs) elected at a general election. This majority it is claimed to be of the popular vote. In reality is of the TURNOUT.

In the 1997 General Election, the TURNOUT was 71.3% or 30.7 millions. Of a total electorate of 39.5 millions approx.

Labour party 13.5 million = 44% of turnout = 31.24% of total electorate.
Conservative party 9.6 million = 31% of turnout = 22% of total electorate.
Liberal Democrat party 5.2 million = 17% of turnout = 12% of total electorate
Others 2.45 million = 8% of turnout = 5.6% of total electorate.
“None of the above party” 8.8 million, did not vote for any candidate, therefore 17.25 million voted against having a Labour party government.

Turnout at elections in UK have been declining since 1950. Assuming total electorate roughly constant, the last Tory governments (1979-1997) were elected with similar results.
Everyone should recall it was the 13,697,923 votes in the 1979 general election which ushered Margaret Thatcher into Downing Street.

May 1979 GE
Con 43.9%: 13,697,923 votes, Lab 36.9% : 11,532,218 votes, Lib 13.8% : 4,313,804 votes.

The electoral commission should add NON OF THE ABOVE to the voting paper.

What is required is a Constitutional Convention to be called. This is the first step to democracy in Britain. Object a written codified constitution.
For a UK written constitution, what I consider, the most important aspect, the parties have to be removed from the process of selecting our representatives (including the Prime Minister) right down to local level. The present system of party whips forcing MPs to vote along party lines distorts democracy and gives excessive power to the parties

Wouldn't miss it for the world. I wonder who'll be standing in for Gordon though? He won't turn up. He daren't. He'll make a complete fool of himself. Unless of course the BBC have put the fix in already.

No - of no relevance to me.

I will be voting Plaid Cymru.

The 'debate' will be sanitized beyond all meaningful use.A Jon Snow or Paxo grilling would reveal much more.

I do not think so. All three contenders will have been prepared so thoroughly that all we will get are the messages already contained in their respective manifestos. I am looking for someone with integrity and moral courage to drag us out of our current mess and give this country back to the people, not some 'clever', spin doctor trained actor. Having made up my mind long ago how I am going to vote, the sooner this circus ends, the better.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I will watch just for the spectacle, not because it will change my voting intentions.

No doubt Cameron will be perceived to have won. His shallow bribe driven campaign and his charisma will win the day. We will wait to see if solidity and principles prevail against vacuity and opportunism on election day.

Should be entertaining. I enjoy quality scripted escapism and dramatic performances.

#19 - You are absolutely spot on.

This election more than any other is wide open to parties outside the big 3, yet the BBC excludes them from the debate. But then you only have to follow HYS to see how the Beeb is politically biased and opposed to democracy.

Comment 2. "This would be a far better debate if they asked the BNP nick griffon first then allow the same amount of time +1 minute for each of the other party leaders to answer. "

I agree. Give NG enough rope to hang himself again.

I am sure it will be as mediocre boring as watching cricket or moreso when rain stops play.

Its making me feel tired just thinking about it.

I can imagine the relevence of it.
It will be like-

Audience Question- Do you like cream eggs?

Cameron Reply- To be honest and frank, by the way thats not me at the end of the phone if you're one of those people who phone Frank. Tomatoes are very nice, especially when grilled and put on a plate with bacon and chicken eggs, you cant do that with cream eggs. I do like creamed chicken eggs all mushy with butter but I think tomatoes are much more important, though I am hoping that one day they will manage to make blue ones which I think will be fairer to society and provide a differnt choice than to that available at present and which is the same representative colour as that Mr Browns party which I think is bad for business and bad for people as a whole.

Brown intervention- get to the point of the question which was not about tomatoes or their colour, which I incidently think is a nice natural colour which shows and proves whos side tomatoes are actually on. I doubt if given the chance that tomatoes would opt to be blue, its a ridiculous notion and not one that any decent tomatoe should even consider. I believe that Nick Clegg likes the yellow ones which is pretty apt because they are a minority tomatoe and not very popular.

Nick Clegg intervention- My popularity like yellow tomatoes is actually getting bigger and I think people have experienced red tomatoes for much to long and deserve better and more choice. We will ensure that yellow tomatoes have a fair and balanced position next to red tomatoes in shops and we will also help yellow tomatoes by offering them as part of our new heroin/drug users rehabilitation policy which is better than either Labour or Torys because neither even mentions any tomatoes for drug users. We are the party of new ideas, ideas for a new age, ideas for any age, young or old, pretty or infirm, black or white. The grass will not grow under my feet, I have too much to do to stand idle,I have too much to change. Where theres no dafodils we will plant dafodils, where the grass is not very green we shall not turn it, we shall make it greener for all. When it snows, we will make sure theres plenty of salt put by and if salt runs low, we will have an alternative back up supply of cornflakes to grit the roads with. We will put the fair into fairness, we will put the bold into boldness and we will...

Brown intervention- you can say what you like Clegg, the reality of you being able to carry out your policys is about as realistic as Alister Darling dyeing his eyebrows the same colour as his hair...

David vameron intervention- or Prescot having one Jag, haw haw haw.

Brown intervention- At least Prescot was supporting the British economy and tax system whereas you Cameron dilly dally on that silly bike winding up car drivers and slowing down the economy even before you have been in office avoiding petrol duties and VAT thus also reducing investment to put into green policys...

Nick Clegg intervention- we have green policys, ban heathrow expansion and use the land for growing yellow tomatoes, the tomatoes are quite green for some time before they choose their preferential colour and turn yellow. Stop all road building and spend it on the trains and make our trains great again the we can use them to transport tomatoes to the people and the world......................
..........

ON & on ariston yawn

"Well, we need to look at the bigger picture so that [chunder, chunder, chunder] and then"

"Yes, but can you answer the question?"

"Yes, but the bigger picture means [chunder, chunder, chunder]"

"No, the question was"

"Yes, but [chunder, chunder, chunder] we need to look at the bigger picture which means [chunder, chunder, chunder]"

Total waste of time. Unless if anyone failed to answer a question directly they had no more opportunities to speak. Where's Robin Day when you need him?

YES I intend to watch the party leaders' debates on television although I have already decided to vote for UKIP. That said I am hoping for a hung parliament and maybe that will force all politicians to realise that no single party has all the answers to our economic and social problems. We were promised a referendum on the EU by both Labour and the Tories whereas NEITHER have kept their promises and the Lib/Dems are naively pro the EU. UKIP have the right answer on immigration which is to impose a 5-year freeze. Added together the two main planks of UKIP policy would save us BILLIONS starting on 7th May which would be a nice birthday present for me.

I will probably watch the debates but it is very unfair that the SNP have been excluded. Nick Clegg for example is not the leader of the Liberals in Scotland but I have to listen to him.

The BBC have got it really wrong with devolution and do not understand devolution. Why is the BBC broadcasting to Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland domestic issues which are England only? Something wrong here!

"33. At 5:30pm on 14 Apr 2010, Alison wrote:
Wouldn't miss it for the world. I wonder who'll be standing in for Gordon though? He won't turn up. He daren't. He'll make a complete fool of himself. Unless of course the BBC have put the fix in already."

I suppose he was around after the Spitting Image puppets finished?

no, reason all parties should have the right to speak,
this is discrimination to other parties,
for the voters they need to hear all parties views
and not be manipulated by sky

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Will I watch the debate? It'll be a bit like watching Dr. Who because I can envisage myself hiding behind the sofa half the time. I might just wait and read the highlights in the press.

My concern is that it will turn into a circus - with each potential leader trying to outdo the others. Clever words are easy to say but in the end it will be actions that speak loudest.

Personally I have had enough of Mr. Brown and his lies and broken promises. I cannot trust him.
Mr. Clegg seems a nice enough lad but I'm unsure of his potential as this country's leader.
David Cameron seems enthusiastic enough and if he acts as well as he speaks he will be a decent PM.
I've read over and over again people comparing Cameron to Margaret Thatcher.
What rubbish. It's like saying that Gordon Brown has a lot in common with Harold Wilson. In both cases there is no similarity whatsoever.

I shall certainly watch the start. If it is a debate as opposed to everyone accusing everyone else I shall watch it. Sadly I doubt it, what I expect is another slagging match. In any event there are so many parties missing that it is largely meaningless.

Incidentally I would like to ask why we can't have a 'None of the Above' entry on the ballot paper.

No. Whatever we are told, never mind how honest and convincing the part leaders may sound, I know it will change and U-turns will be made. I have better things to do than listening to their vote catching phrases, shiny faces, and apparently oh so concerned for us, the voters, well being. They make promises but don't tell us what they will be taking away. Particularly Cameron, he is a fox if ever there was. Watch out all of you who will vote for him! You will be crying in a couple of year's time if not before.

Cameron is right the public will be short changed. He has no right to be appearing on prime time TV. And how many discussion went into producing the rules for this "debate"?

No. I have better things to do with my time than to listen to lies, more lies and media obfuscation.

THere's no point in watching this.

BBC news has practically been GORDON BROWN, DAVID CAMERON AND NICK CLEGG for the past week.



These are the con artists. Why are you constantly trying to push ONLY these?
How can you declare yourself impartial if you don't allow every party to attend?

I'm not going to watch, I'm not going to vote for either of these three. They already aren't keeping to a level playing field. How can they be trusted AFTER the election?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No I will not be watching. The "rules" negating audience reaction and interaction are suspicious at best, other major parties like UKIP are not involved and since it's on ITV I'm not willing to put up with adverts.

What's the point? The questions will have been carefully selected from the pool of questions offered, carefully avoiding any controversial of awdward for the 'contestants'. It'll probably be little more than an opportunity for the three of them to do what they do in parliament, just in a slightly different setting. I'll watch the highlights (if there prove to be any) in the news later.

"Why is the BBC broadcasting to Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland domestic issues which are England only? Something wrong here!"

One of these will be the British Prime Minister so there's more reason to televise this in Scotland than there is to have Scottish MP's voting on domestic issues which only affect England!

Taking advantage of the questions suggested, let's try to figure out if they are lying based on their answers.


1) Are you going to raise taxes ?

If they say no they are lying like dogs, if they say not immediatly they are lying like dogs, if they say yes but only the rich then they are lying like dogs.


2) Are you going to cut public sector jobs ?

If they say no, then they will take the country to ruin, if they say yes but not NHS, then they are lying like dogs.


3) Are you going to stop immigration ?

If they say yes then you know they are lying as costs would be enormous.


4) Are you going to reform public sector pensions ?

It is obvious if they say no they will be lying.


5) Are you going to give the UK's citizens a vote on the EU ?

Who cares? nobody will vote, so if they try to develop much here they are clearly lying about something else.


6) Are you going to stop releasing criminals early ?

If they say no then they are saying the truth.


7) Are you going to stop paying benefits to the workshy ?

If they say yes they are lying as those guy vote too.


8) Are you going to withdraw out troops from Iraq and Afghanistan ?

If they say no they are telling the truth, otherwise they are lying like dogs as that will upset the americans.



Now, I would like to hear some truths for a change so I will watch it but I am not convinced of any development coming out of this.

No! The wife says she will divorce me if I do, Or we will be off for a new TV on friday. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

Not much point in watching it since we can all watch them squeel like little girls on Pm's Question time which is already broadcast on TV every week.

No. Strangely, as a Mom in the USA, I find it of little importance. Besides, I'd have to stream it (since it won't be broadcast in Philly, PA) and my kids always hog my bandwidth. Sry.

Given that it looks increasingly likely that the Liberals will hodl the balance of power the ONLY question is who will they side with and why?

Any other questioning seems rather irrelevent!

"19. At 5:14pm on 14 Apr 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
No. There seems to be no real democracy in this country - if there were UKIP, Greens and BNP would be involved in this debate.How come if the BBC is meant to be impartial - it's only Labour, Tory and Liberal leaders in the debate. One can only conclude that the BBC seems not to be impartial and seems to be anti democratic force in UK broadcasting."

Um... the debate is on ITV.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I`ll be watching these three having a mass debate for a laugh, after all it`ll be a cheap laugh.

I don't know if I'll watching more important things to do, it'll be probably staged managed and the questions 'cherry picked'.

It could be argued the Channels showing it are politically biased as it doesn't gave the other parties a chance, like the BNP or UKIP - still it may be be the best comedy show on TV.

Bet Rory Bremner will be watching.

It will be all stage managed with pre aranged questions plus i'm voting for UKIP so theres no point really.

This will be another whitewash as these politicians will already know the questions that they are going to be asked. It will be the same rhetoric and party lines with a bit of flair as a deviance.
They should be thrown to the lions at this chance of exposing them.
To answer as straight as they can and honestly BUT do they understand the word.......honestly

Why are the British National Party not invited? Is it because the electorate will discover they are a good party with the concerns of the British working man at heart?

The programme will be totally irrevelant to us in Scotland, so, no I won't be watching. Since this election has been called, we have been subjected to what the broadcasters call the 'three main party leaders' telling us how bad things will be if we should be so daft as to vote for the other lot, and not a lot about what they plan to do themselves. But, for any voter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, most of the topics up for discussion are revelant to England only. They are devolved matters and are decided in Edinburgh, Cardiff & Belfast. The main parties in Scotland are Labour & SNP, the Lib-Dems and especially the Tories are both minorities and do not appear on most Scottish voters radar.
The same applies in Wales & Northern Ireland. Where are Plaid Cymru and the SDLP? Where are Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionists? The people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are being short changed here, as are supporters of UKIP, the BNP and The Greens. As for the arguement that Brown, Cameron & Clegg are potential prime ministers while the leaders of the other parties are not, well come on - Nick Clegg for PM? To quote John McEnroe, 'you can not be serious'. In order for these programmes to be truly democratic, all the party leaders, from all over the UK should have been asked to participate. In the event of a hung parliament, their parties support or otherwise could be vital. Too unwieldy? Then call the whole thing off. It is an undemocratic concept, and should never have been contemplated in the first place. If you live in anywhere but England, and you are still daft enough to watch this lot, as soon as things like the NHS, education or any power which is devolved is mentioned, nip through to the kitchen and put the kettle on or something. It's nothing to do with you.

No thanks...I never watch repeats or fiction.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

LOL @ #63. I think you well and truly pwned the BNP supporter, but that's not exactly difficult is it?

Anyway, yes i'll be watching. I want to see Gordon Brown defend 13 years of disaster for society, the economy and our country.

We were once a country that the world respected. Now we are the laughing stock of the world.

I want to see Gordon Brown defend the billions of pounds spent on illegal wars that have made Tony Blair a multi-millionaire.

I want to see Gordon Brown defend the CO2 and damage to the environment that nearly a decade of wars have done to our planet whilst he bleats on about the environment and extorts money out of motorists.

I want to see Gordon Brown defend the thousands of laws introduced under New Labour, the CCTV society and the generation of feral youth who have no respect for themselves, anyone else and will grow up thinking it's okay to live a life on benefits.

Finally I want to see Gordon Brown defend why 98% of the 1.7 million jobs created since 1997 have gone to immigrants and why there are 9 million British people of working age who are not working but are claiming benefits.

No.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Yes, I will be watching,but it'll be 'Crossroads'!
I've just returned from a'live' local debate with my 'Prospective Candidates' (bar one, who got the wind up).
What a shambles!. Cross shouting and insults floated across the top panels of the great and the good.like womens cackle at the fish quay. The inuendo and cross talk ,came to a head when a member of the 'audience ' (A constituent member)demanded that prospective candidates,declare previous convictions and misdemenors. (I was astounded,that the Chairman allowed this,but he did!........The hall went into a crescendo of silence (you could have heard a pin drop!) suddenly, all hell broke out among the Contestants. Confessions of Speeding Convictions, accusations of 'murder',embezelment,One fellow admited getting a Casbo for pinching a bottle of milk when he was a Lad! The whole thing turned out as a 'live
Pantomime' without the 'clappometer generator'in a Studio!
Much better than TV farces....You should try it Folks!
Cyclops

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

I'll probably record it to watch later when I'm in the mood. It won't make the viewer any wiser and I can't imagine it causing loyalty to shift from one party to another very often.

Also I'm gritting my teeth about the whole body of politicians since I heard that Legal Aid has been granted to people who are probably richer than I am, when I'm sure it wouldn't be available to me if I needed it.

Theirs is an industry where they sure know how to take care of themselves.

I just don't see the point of the event; These characters are trained and educated to debate until the cows come home. They know that whatever they say - even as election promises - they don't need to keep those promises if they get into power. If there was a law MAKING them keep their pre-election promises, maybe we would see some truth come out.
So, we're going to end up with a trio of show-offs demonstrating how wonderfully they can talk, and viewing figures that the TV company will be delighted with. And the whole circus will cost so very, very little.
Its a con. A total con.

No because it will not include all the leaders of all the parties ??????????

No, I will not watch.

All this does in encourage "President" type politics.

The idea is to elect members of Parliament. Members who do their job

properly are in danger of losing their seats for no good reason, and,

by the same token, constituencies may gain a terrible MP.

No I will not they vare not including all the leaders of all parties??

Well, huhhhhh, I am sick and tired of this election panto taking up almost every moment of the news broadcasts, newsnight, etc., or so it seems. I can't switch on News24 or even Sky without one of these politician's talking mug filling the screen or some presenter waffling on about the history of this election all the way back to April 6th.

I've had enough!.

I will probably watch it - or some of it, not knowing how long I can last out - but sense that it will give me a hate-brace against politics generally. Every bloomin' word will be pored over, filtered, shrinkwrapped and carded for our delectation spawning even more waffle and news pollution.

As I see it, this debate will be sanitised and scripted so I expect no honesty, with Brown as ever evading answers to any question (it seems a habit to him): even if you ask him the time of day he'll blame the Conservatives. I'd love to see William Hague handling Brown and Clegg, though!

It might turn out to be a comedy. I hope so. But I'll keep the remote by my side in case it isn't.

The following, copied from another part of the BBC's website, shows the whole thing to be a mockery. What's the point in watching a soapbox controlled by the three parties concerned?
"At a series of meeting the politicians and the broadcasters hammered out a 76-point programme format agreement. Questions would be put by a carefully selected audience who would not be allowed to boo or cheer or even to clap, and during the debates the political parties would each have a live hotline to the broadcasters to appeal against what they saw as unfair camera shots or lack of balance.
How can there be a lack of balance when the questions are so carefully selected (8 whole questions I've heard!). Personally I won't be bothering to watch it, I'll just wait for highlights (or not!) in the news later.

18. At 5:12pm on 14 Apr 2010, John wrote:
"What's the point?

Conservative - tens of thousands more immigrants Labour - will allow as many immigrants as want to come here Liberals - an immigrant free-for-all deluge.

No BNP participation therefore no viewing!"

Whilst we remain in the EU we cannot stop immigrants arriving from other EU countries.

Only UKIP are pledged to get us out and will also stop all non-EU immigration for 5 years - and it avoids all the unpleasantness that goes with the BNP.

The only way i would watch, is if Jeremy Paxman was in the chair, it's the only way we might get any answers without too much waffle and deviation.

No way. The only way things can change in the UK is if we DO NOT VOTE. Otherwise we just sanctify more of this useless tit-for-tat idiocy by self-serving criminals. Sorry, them's the breaks.

No, I will not be watching it, as it's only the three English parties and let's face it, it will be same old promises wrapped up in shiny new paper.

It is not very educational or advantageous to this "democratic society" for the public to be spoon fed more drivel from the media.

It is time that the public were forced to actually open-mindedly contemplate their decisions and actually try to understand the policies that they are supporting when voting.

There are too many people that have the vote yet are incapable of rational thought.

Why do we entrust the governing of the country to so many stupid people?

Our "democracy" clearly needs an entrance exam for voters because the majority that actually voice their concerns and what they support and why just seem to be taken by single policies and not bother looking into the whole thing and learning about it before casting the vote.

They fail to see the parallels between government and their day to day lives.
They fail to think.

Conveniently for them, our government knows how to take advantage of that behaviour!

If they were to just think and look into things, they would realise how "democratic" our society really is.
Now that is something our governing bodies would not like the masses to know!

Another thing I'd like to point out is the pointless usage of open undefined words such as 'hope' and 'change' in political campaigns. These are nothing but manipulative tools for gaining the support of people incapable of thinking critically (there are a lot of them). Because they remain undefined, a lot of individuals (well, flocks of 'sheep', more like) take them to be directly related to their own definitions of 'hope' and 'change' as well as other open-ended words that mean nothing without context.

In this vein, it would also be nice if the government would stop pretending to be for the "good" and just admitted that it is there to GOVERN and otherwise CONTROL how the country is run and the people that occupy it.

This is way past a joke and has been for such a very long time.

61. At 6:33pm on 14 Apr 2010, Philly-Mom wrote:

No. Strangely, as a Mom in the USA, I find it of little importance. Besides, I'd have to stream it (since it won't be broadcast in Philly, PA) and my kids always hog my bandwidth. Sry.

----------------

The nation is devastated.

Certainly not, I want honesty, integrity and reform introduced back into UK politics. This will be a case of over-boosted political ego's trying to con the electorate yet again.

69. At 6:57pm on 14 Apr 2010, John Adair wrote:

Why are the British National Party not invited? Is it because the electorate will discover they are a good party with the concerns of the British working man at heart?

------------------

It could be because their share of the vote in the last general election was about 0.74%. Are you still wishing you could vote for Hitler?

I shall be watching.

No.

Yes I'll watch.

I shall count how many times the party leaders disingenuously uses "this country", "the country" or "Britain" to describe devolved legislation that affects only England.

None of them seem capable of saying the word England.

69. At 6:57pm on 14 Apr 2010, John Adair wrote:

""""" Why are the British National Party not invited? Is it because the electorate will discover they are a good party with the concerns of the British working man at heart? """""

Because they are hopeing for an interesting debate, and they will be using words of more than one syllable. Which Nick Griffin might understand, so the BNP debate will be held on Mikshake channel 5.

69. At 6:57pm on 14 Apr 2010, John Adair wrote:
"Why are the British National Party not invited? Is it because the electorate will discover they are a good party with the concerns of the British working man at heart?"

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all night.

I am planning to watch it, as despite having never voted for The Conversatives, or Labour, yet, do think David Cameron is a very good (and entertaining) debater and when watching Prime Minister's Question time before have found debates between him and Gordon Brown very interesting to watch. However, I'm still fully intending to vote UKIP at the general election at this time. I used to have alot of faith in the Liberal Democrats but in recent times that's changed. I think it's time to give a completely different party a real chance to make positive changes to the current state of Britain's politics, and my opinion is that UKIP would be the best choice.

I'll watch it as this is turning into an interesting election for the 3 main parties.

Strangely, this topic seems to be full of comments from people who are distraught that the Monster Raving Loony Party aren't represented on stage, along with the other tiny minority fringe wacko groups like ukip and bnp (ooh i bet that upsets some of you).

You couldn't bribe or pay me to watch these three ripe buffoons.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who spout "immigration" and "EU" as the most important things about the election in so many of these HYS forums.

It saddens me how many bigots have come out of the Daily Mail/Daily express generation.