Leaders Debate

[Jordy]

Well I haven't seen it, but I caught about 20 minutes of it on Radio 4 and then drifted off it was that boring and I was so tired

From the bit I did hear though, Cameron was being interrupted constantly and hardly given any chance. Brown seemed very arrogant and continually agreeing with Clegg. Clegg sounds like quite the performer (Although it's difficult to tell on the radio) so that would explain all the praise, but if people stepped away from that they'd realise the Liberal Democrats do have the worst and most unrealistic policies, we'd be better off with Labour.

Cameron probably could of done better from the reports I've been hearing, but I still maintain the Conservatives policies are the best and if you look at his performances in Prime Ministers Questions every week you will see how amazing he is at speaking. No debates going to change those facts for me and I wish it was the same for other people.

[Catzsy]

Totally agree.

Well at least it gives the public to here it straight from the candidates rather than via the media that tends to slant it to whoever's colours they have pinned to the mask. @ Jordy there was no interrupting - the presenter directed the debate but he was strict on time.

[jam666]

Well I clearly watched it more closely than you because I remember a specific incident where Brown asked him something to which he avoided by saying something else so Brown was going 'answer the question David' but the time ran out so the host moved them on.

And I'm deluded? Says the guy with the most narrow-minded view I have ever seen. At least I'm approaching my analysis from a neutral perspective.

Edit: Apeel's post above is exactly what I was talking about.

Oh dear.. abit strange isnt it that on the last question asked about elderly care all nick clegg had to basically say was well look at it together after the election. There was no solution to the problem and simply said it will be discussed at a later date. Gordon Brown gave pretty much the same answer. However David Cameron said that EVERYONE will have the option to pay a one off fee of £8,000 to ensure that they dont have to sell their house if they needed to go into residential care.

Im not narrow minded. I'm simply stating what i see and yes you can call me biased but thats expected because i obviously support the conservative party.

[GommeInc]

I decided to go with the LibDems early this week, and what Clegg had to say was informative and in some instances useful. The Trident and Nuclear issues are indeed worrying, but I'm not going to chuck him on the back bench because of this - the chances are he may not scrap Trident, if the public oppose it too much. The key issues are what we should be focusing on, and Clegg did the best at putting them across.

Cameron was a bit useless, and some of his policies are a bit bonkers, like the one revolving around marriage and giving married couples money. Gordon Brown was okay though, not amazing but this definitely put him in a good light - his airbrushed comment was legendary

[Fez]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but scrapping the Trident wouldn't take away all of our nuclear arsenal would it?

[lazerman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but scrapping the Trident wouldn't take away all of our nuclear arsenal would it?

not really, people are just worried cos they think it will get rid of all nuclear missiles rofl

[Fez]

Well we will still have nuclear deterrents and God knows how much we already spend on maintaining them. We don't need to upgrade our Armageddon weapons.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't scrap the whole scheme, I'd half the budget. We still have more nuclear deterrents than Iran and Korea.

Nice of Cameron (or was it Brown?) to mention China too. I doubt they would want to take over the world, they already have done financially.

[Jordy]

Trident is the only way we can deliver nuclear weapons (From four special submarines). We can have missiles and stockpiles without trident I think, but with no way of dropping them they'd be useless

Halving the budget would also be bad, there's four submarines. One is anywhere in the world, only a few people in Britain and a few people onboard know where it is, if there is the call to fire nuclear weapons, this will be the submarine which sends them. One will be going under repair/upgrades in Scotland and the other two will be undergoing training and ready to go into service if need be. These rotate every few months or so and if there was any less than four there would be certain times when we would have no nuclear weapons capability.

Titch is quite the expert here though as he's going to be spending time in a Trident submarine soon I think?

[Black_Apalachi]

Oh dear.. abit strange isnt it that on the last question asked about elderly care all nick clegg had to basically say was well look at it together after the election. There was no solution to the problem and simply said it will be discussed at a later date. Gordon Brown gave pretty much the same answer. However David Cameron said that EVERYONE will have the option to pay a one off fee of £8,000 to ensure that they dont have to sell their house if they needed to go into residential care.

Im not narrow minded. I'm simply stating what i see and yes you can call me biased but thats expected because i obviously support the conservative party.

That just supports the common conception that the Conservative party is for the rich. Our family would never be able to afford to throw that kind of money away like that so why should I vote for them? Of course it assumes you own a house in the first place!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but scrapping the Trident wouldn't take away all of our nuclear arsenal would it?

Exactly. And being scared of Korea and Iran or whoever else is a ******** argument because by that logic, every nation in the world should equip themselves with nuclear weapons as any one of them could be attacked by Korea etc at any time. Why should they attack anyone, especially us? It just seems like paranoia to me.

[jam666]

That just supports the common conception that the Conservative party is for the rich. Our family would never be able to afford to throw that kind of money away like that so why should I vote for them? Of course it assumes you own a house in the first place!

No, you have interpretted this wrongly. If you cant afford to pay the £8000 and dont have anything such as a house youll recieve FREE residential care like you do currently BUT if your aged 65 for example and have a house worth £250,000 but have to go into a residential home you can pay a mere £8000 to ensure that the house is left for inheritance by your sons/daughters or whoever which is quite fair. It means instead of leaving nothing for anyone, you can instead pay a SMALL fee to protect your property (or any financial items such as savings etc) which will pay for the residential care home for the rest of your life which means your assets are essential protected from the state.