No I know what you're trying to say. Unfortunately, the reason why Cameron did better in the poll than Brown may have been that the Sun did back the Tories after Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour Conference, which I couldn't believe that they did that.

Although Sun readers did show in the poll that they thought Nick Clegg did well in the poll tonight.

The reason some people think a poll of Sun readers is important is the parties know in the last few General Elections, the Sun has supported the party that has more often than not gone on to win the election. It's interesting therefore that the newspaper itself has backed the Tories for the election but Nick Clegg won the debate here with viewers, which shows thankfully that the Sun readers don't just read what they are told and that they do seem to have a mind of their own.

It was the Sun that the backed the Tories in 1992 when they unexpectedly won after they printed the famous headline:
"If Neil Kinnock wins, will the last person in Britain please turn off the lights."

After the Tories won, they printed the headline:
"It's the Sun wot won it!"

So after that, there are some people who believe the Sun is an important endorsement for political parties to have going to elections in the future.

Times poll
Clegg 61%
Cameron 22%
Brown 17%

Overwhelming.

You've got three more weeks of this yet!

And then there's election night!

Well I thought Brown made a bit of a tit of himself to be honest, laughing off the others points, claiming every time to be "bringing it in now" and constantly "agreeing with nick". Nothing Cameron said really stuck in my mind, no real policies of note. Clegg was the only one who came out with any credibility in my eyes, everyone was talking about "change" but Clegg seemed to be the only one promoting radical change and explaining his policies, to the other two it was just like another parliament debate where they attacked each other and what they said has no substance.

A small victory for the Lib Dems in my opinion, hopefully they can maintain public interest, but i doubt it.

I loved Brown's lipstick! Sorry mate, you need more than a bit of max factor to stop you looking bad.

I thought it was a bit of a let down and quite boring but they performed as expected. Brown trying to be sincere but coming over apologetic. Cameron seeming a little too smarmy and Clegg performing well and sounding like he meant it.

I saw no reason to change my vote away from the Liberals.

Must just be me who thought Clegg showed himself up to be a bit of an idiot then.

You know what Nick, I don't think getting rid of our nuclear weapons just as the likes of Iran and North Korea are getting them is a good idea. If they want to fire them somewhere who do you think they'll aim at? The US who can fire some back or the UK who can't?

As for his tax plans? It's often said that elections are won and lost by who gets the vote of middle-earners (Middle England etc.), yet the stuff he's advocating will cost those people thousands of pounds a year. Scrapping higher rate tax relief on pension contributions, scrapping tax relief on childcare vouchers etc. If his lot somehow got in I'd have to seriously consider "doing a Spender".

My only conclusion is that the polls on who "won" are either unrepresentative of the sector mentioned above or people who think he presented himself well but when they digest the policies wouldn't vote Lib Dem because of the consequences.

Brown looked false with his forced smile, if he wasn't PM and you saw a photo of him in the paper you'd expect to see a story about a kiddy fiddler.

Cameron waffled and didn't present himself as well as Clegg did but certainly better than Brown, although neither Cameron or Brown really covered themselves in glory with what they said.

I am not surprised at the way the polls went. Clegg won it because he has less to lose. Brown has the most to lose and Cameron is in between.
We can judge Brown on his recent past performances, neither Clegg or Cameron have any Prime Ministerial form for us to go on, therefore we tend to pay more attention to what they are saying, whereas we tend to harp back to whether we like what Brown has done or not as the case may be.
No one in living memory can recall a Liberal government, therefore it is difficult to point fingers at them, as we can at the other two.
For the best part of a century Liberals have had a minority number of seats in Parliament, taking very nice salaries and expenses..................for doing what??????????
Apart from the short and failed Lib Lab pact the Liberal contribution has been zero.
To put it another way, if they had not been there can anyone seriously say that they would have been missed.
The cushiest job in Parliament is being a Liberal MP.
At the moment they can promise the earth and slate the other two, because they know they will never have to fulfil what they suggest would be best for the country. They would crap themselves silly if they somehow got to power.
Promises are easy when there's no chance of you being ask to fulfil them.

The only positive that came out of that debate was the fact that, due to Clegg's success in snap polls, it might shake the other two up a bit, which won't do any harm.

As for the other two....................wasn't impressed.

The bottom line is the economy..................whoever gets in has to get that right because all else follows on from there.

The race is still between the big two whether we like it or not.

£100bn to replace trident. Why? don't the old ones work any more?

We spent a fortune on Polaris and didn't use them.
We spent a fortune on Polaris 2 and didn't use them.
We spent a fortune on Trident and didn't use them.
Now we are going to spend a fortune on Trident 2 and won't use them.

FFS, if we need to deliver nuclear payloads we've got a host of missiles that will do the job.

I disagree, I think the Liberals are going to do really well. They won't win of course but they will have a fair slice of MP's. People don't trust Brown, he has lied for 13 years about Iraq, his 'prudence' (how silly does that look now), the banks, I could go on all night...

Cameron doesn't look ready either so a huge amount of people will be swayed into voting for Clegg partly because of these debates, partly because of Vince Cable and partly because they can't vote for the other two.

I hope we have a hung parliment and these lot are forced to work together.

I hope that you've got deep pockets.

Fair point, young man.
I would say though, that the fact we didn't use them is testimony to their value.
As long as having them deters some lunatic from firing his nukies, then they are worth it.
The £100bn being bandied about is over 25 years, a small price if it prevents a holocaust.

Concurring with Mr D.

My point is that theres nothing wrong with the existing systems and they are way ahead of anything the opposition have so why spend £100 bn?

In every general election in my lifetime the Liberals have always come across well, and people have been tempted.
It has never happened for them and it won't now.
William Hague touched on what will happen as a result of last night's debate.
He said that, because of Clegg's perceived success, more scrutiny will be directed at his policies.
What he means by that is that the two heavyweights will direct more artillery on to the Liberal camp.
They haven't got the money, firepower or political clout within the media or the business community to make any serious inroads into the two party dominance that currently exists.
They're gonna need more than a few debating sessions to do that.
Unfortunate?? Unfair??? Yes, but that is how it is.
The Liberal main weapon used to be PR, the only way they were ever going to have a say. They've given up that one and are now concentrating on getting a hung Parliament in order to have their five minutes of glory.
We've had those situations before where unholy alliances are formed, but they have never lasted. They all fall out sooner or later.

You often trot out a list like this as an indictment of New Labour and the reason you left the UK. What always gets me Kev, is that if these things really do matter to you, I'm surprised you stayed as long as you did. I'm not saying that I'm going to vote Labour (I'm still undecided), it's just that this is a list of complaints that have always been made and it appears to me that New Labour is just a continuation of what went before.

2 wars - I'll partially concede that one but only partially. Both could be said to have resulted from Thatcher/Regan interventions during the cold war and Thatcher had her critics in that realm. Add to that dodgy arms sales (Scott inquiry) and the Tories were never whiter than white.

Stealth Tax; loved by the Tories in the 80s. Lower income tax, raise VAT. Nothing new there.

Surveillance. GCHQ in the 80s were known to tap phones without legal authorisation; we were hauled in front of the ECHR.

30000 new offences. Most are regulatory and the volume of legislation has been on an upward curve for generations. I see nothing in any manifesto (everyone promises change and reform) to tell me that's peculiar to Labour.

Council tax rise. Lets go no further here; the poll tax.

Bent peers. As old as the hills. How about cash for questions?

Police brutality. Remind me, what did Lord Scarman conclude started the Brixton riots? Remember the SPG? Remember all the miscarriages of justice that came to light in the 90s; police brutality in the 70s and 80s.

IT projects. All governments have their daft experiments and waste although I concede this is a biggy.

The Lisbon Treaty. As any European integrationist will tell you, the SEA started this (Thatcher's idea, ironically enough) and developed by Maastricht (Major).

Knife Crime. In the late 70s/early 80s it was mugging. In the 80s it was football hooliganism and in the 90s kids out of control. Every generation looks back at it's youth as a golden age and everything's ruined now.

PFI. An expression of New Public Management, the contracting out of public service and contestability. Very 80s, very Thatcher.

Looking at your list Kev, I'm surprised you didn't piss of in 1985?

Why am I not surprised that you consider this political analysis?

Yes; the only party to give a political voice to what a great many thought about the invasion of Iraq. At times, they were the only effective opposition on a number of really important points.

Perhaps the most sensible thing you have ever posted.

It's down to modernisation or keeping things up to date.
The government has been accused, nay slated, for not bringing other modes of weaponry up to date, so when they respond to the perceived need to do it with the nukies, then they are wrong????????????? Don't get that.
It is over 25 years. No one knows what the state of world peace will be at the end of that period.
What I can guarantee though is that if we don't update our nuclear firepower some wiseguy in the future will shake his head, with hindsight, and accuse the politicians of today of having no foresight.

It was an observation rather than political analysis.

Why am I not surprised that you labelled it as you did?

And the outcome was that nobody took a blind bit of notice to them...............they never do.
They have as much influence as the Parliamentary cat, which is unfortunate.
Being right is one thing, being listened to is another.
Sad though it is.
I'm not saying I agree with the apathy and Parliamentary ridicule shown towards them, but it exists.
That apathy is mirrored within the electorate.
Maybe it will change someday but I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath.

A hung Parliament wouldn't last five minutes imo.

Concurring with Mr D again!

Maybe I'm becoming paranoid now that I'm a parent?

I'd like to modernise my house into a 10 bedroom mansion but I can't afford it.
I'd like to modernise my car into a £75'000 Mercedes CL but I can't afford it.
I'd like to never work again and be on a permanent globetrotting holiday but I can't afford it.

Labour want to spend £100bn on trident but we can't fooking afford it.

You tak about weapons, I defy anyone to speak to a serving soldier about what equipment they want upgrading and find one that demands new trident missiles. They want better weapons, better clothing, better ration packs, better body armour, better vehicles, helicopters, better anti IED tools but not a single one of them will want a better nuclear arsenal that they can't use.

Maybe they also need educating.

That is unworthy Mr D. They need no education as to what equipment they need in the real world of the war they are currently fighting. They see it only too well as they pack their mates into body bags.

I don't think so.
The average soldier wants what is necessary to him, as per your very comprehensive list, and I agree with that.
Where the education bit comes in is that he also needs to know that the presence and existance of nuclear weapons, politely know as a deterrent, make the chances of him and his mates being wiped off the face of the earth by fanatics using similar nuclear weapons a little bit slimmer than they would otherwise be.
All the equipment you list would be futile if he was faced with nuclear missiles being fired at him.
So if he disagrees with the two major parties, who happen to be united over this, then someone needs to educate him a bit more.
As a matter of interest, what is the official top brass view of updating our nuclear capability??? I'm sure they will have had an input here.

Do you think that soldiers don't understand nuclear weapons? As part of basic training ever soldier undergoes comprehensive training in NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical Warfare). The nuclear threat is theoretical, if anyone starts waving them about the launch sites would be bombed to oblivion. We are under threat from a small nuclear device detonated in the UK by terrorists but the hairy arsed Russians, Chinks or even the Koreans or mad mullahs aren't going to launch anything. The Iranians want to bomb Tel Aviv not London.

The top brass have been publically demanding new equipment for years, I've never once heard them ask for more nukes. Besides, as I keep saying, we have missiles that are light years ahead of anything the so called rogue states will come up with in our lifetime.

We've tried that idea with conventional weapons Chip.
We say we're well equipped......................trouble is the enemy has sussed that we're not.

Here's the deal, spending 100bn on a missile defence system will not deter radicals seizing weapons grade material for use in a dirty bomb. If a missile system is so necessary then why are the Tories cacking themselves over tin pot countries without these very expensive systems in place. I think most people can understand the need for a deterrent - just not a 100bn one........and another thing we'll only do what the yanks tell us to do withthem anyway so we may as well let them shoulder the burden of expense.

We will have a hung parliament and from a town perspective it might be good for us if we had a lib dem mp as I'm certain there will be a lot of "bargaining" from labour.
Certainly it will give our current incumbent and his local party a kick up y
the jacksy

No I don't think that soldiers don't understand nuclear weapons, that's not what I'm saying. They obviously are educated in understanding them.
I am responding to your statement that the soldier lists quite a lot of things that he would like or like improved, and never once asks for more money to be spent on nuclear weapons. I wouldn't dispute that fact and as I've said I agree with it. However he is talking from a particular situation where the list you quoted is of more priority to him than an upgraded nuclear deterrent. That doesn't mean to say that we should stagnate on our nuclear capability just because our current areas of conflict don't require it.............or does it????????
If you want to convince me that our nuclear weaponry should remain the same as it is now and the proposed expenditure of £100bn over 25 years should be shelved you will have to do better than tell me that the army don't talk about it.
They'd soon talk about it if some lunatic started chucking a few at them.

ITV/COMRES Poll:
Cons 36%
Lib Dems 35%
Labour 24%.

None of this interests me, and why does everything always end up being about war did they not cover any other points of interest.

If none of it interests you, what would you consider to be a point of interest?

I didn't see it but would consider the rising petrol costs as a matter of interest, did they mention this?

My point is very simple, its about priorities. We can't afford to chuck that sort of money at a nuclear weapons system for no other reason that they are available when what we already have is perfectly servicable and far from obsolete. We have more important priorities.

We have millions of jobless, underfunded schools, an aging population which will ensure that the NHS requires more and more money. These are priorities not some hypothetical situation in the future. Moreover, a hypothetical situation that we are already equipped to deal with.

We simply don't have the money to do everything.

Linda should be first in that list.

Finally, a true reflection of what the Tories really are:

Sun/YouGov Poll
Tories 33%
Lib Dem 30% (up 8%)
Labour 28%

This is a three-horse race now, but if the share of votes were translated into seats then...

Lab 276 seats in Parliament, back in power.
Con 245
LD 100

Just 4,000,000,000,000 snodgers ((c)Mutley) a year then or 67000 per capita. Straight into their mates coffers, I wonder what the kickback on that would be.

It just goes to show why Labour, as the party of government in this country, don't support changes to the voting system.

Because they know that the current system would benefit them.