[Stumped]

Originally Posted by g jones

Controversially I thought they were all poor considering they should be statesman of world standing. Maybe it was stage fright, the first time and all that...

If you were judging them on the night Clegg played the best 'game' but lacked substance. In a poor debate, he positioned himself as the 'real leader' of the opposition.

Cameron collapsed, lacking substance and presence and as I said previously he is the weakest prime minister in waiting in living memory and showed it. Keep repeating words, "exceptionally, exceptionally" is insecurity, a double reinforcer rather than the conviction of saying it once. I've said this before about Cameron's lexicon. He has policy vacuum bigger than a black hole.

Cut the deficit by getting rid of a £72,000 Police Car? Iran a nuclear state? and the 'threat of China' is straight of the Phil the Greeks' playbook!

Gordon was Gordon. Hardly up there with the great himself. Poor communicator. Like a Campbell prepped robot. Even the jokes whilst funny and well balanced, weren't Gordon's?

Round Two is shark infested waters. Cameron needs 20 seats off Clegg or it's Cameron without a majority. Clegg needs to keep his 60 seats he has. Cameron can't concentrate on Labour whilst Clegg has free pot shots. Worse for Cameron, Clegg's economic policy is near enough to Labour's to risk being blasted blind side again, but this time on the big question.

IN General Britain does not have the grand statesmen it once had. It has career politicians. I did not like all the 'Joe the Plumber' stuff either.

It's all very worrying, not perhaps for someone at my time of life, but for the thousands of disenfranchised people, youngsters in particular, brought about by the flippant Labour policies that have been inflicted upon the population at large. I don't see any prospect of a national 'leader' emerging from the bunch of no hopers that the major parties have put forward.

Vote? Me? No chance.