Org Mobile Site
Clegg is obviously the best choice.
I just hope all those that go "I would vote for Lib dem, but I vote labour to keep the tories out" smirk comes close to an end, so they get in power. Labour and Conservatives are basically show men, Libdems have some real brains on the team.
I just hope all those that go "I would vote for Lib dem, but I vote labour to keep the tories out" smirk comes close to an end, so they get in power. Labour and Conservatives are basically show men, Libdems have some real brains on the team.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
It would be a nightmare to administer. It's not a practical policy - just showboating.
No it isn't, it occurs in other European countries and they get on fine with it. Also, the fact it forces people to work means there won't be that many people actually doing it, due to the big cuts I proposed, there is massive incentive to work in the first place instead of pay-fiddling, or working part-time, because you end up with more money than if you worked full-time, amongst other things.It would be a nightmare to administer. It's not a practical policy - just showboating.
I read an interesting (though clearly biased) article in the Times by JK Rowling on single parents. I'll see if I can find it online.
EDIT: here it is. I find the critisism of the Tory proposals very well thought out, though the defence of Labour a little less so.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7096786.ece
EDIT: here it is. I find the critisism of the Tory proposals very well thought out, though the defence of Labour a little less so.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7096786.ece
If Ser Cleggane is running, then I have no doubt he'd win. He'd make an excellent PM.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Clegg is obviously the best choice.
Clegg is obviously the best choice.
It'll almost certainly be a hung-parliament, which is the best outcome (other than a Lib Dems win, not happening
). A clear cut win for the Tories would be disastrous, absolutely disastrous.I watched the debate with interest, especially as it developed into quite a good discussion with some real bite - without descending into yah-boo. Nick Clegg certainly did well - I was quite impressed. He listened, spoke to the audience warmly and passionately and I like his disdain each time Brown tried desperately to be buddies. He got a fairly easy ride, however, because only Cameron tried to nail him down - Brown's pathetic overtures just embarrassed everyone.
Gordon Brown was worst, as expected. He was awfully nervous for the first ten minutes, and then warmed to his theme. I just wish they'd tell him not to smile. I know it's supposed to be about substance, but I swear that if that man smiles as he tells me the sun is going to rise in the morning, he'd have me doubting the phenomenon for the first time. Having said that, he knew his stuff and skewered Call-Me-Dave several times. But he looked like the desperate opposition, not the incumbent.
I agree that Cameron looked Prime Ministerial, in a John Major fin de siècle kind of way. He looked tired, and continued to avoid any real detail. I thought he came off badly on immigration and defence (surprisingly) and wet on the economy (unsurprisingly). As a natural conservative voter, he depresses me and made no inroads into changing my opinion that he will be a disaster. He wore that petulant frown too often, which makes him look like the bad people are taking away the victory daddy promised, and his brain can't think of an answer.
Early days, but it was a decent debate.
Gordon Brown was worst, as expected. He was awfully nervous for the first ten minutes, and then warmed to his theme. I just wish they'd tell him not to smile. I know it's supposed to be about substance, but I swear that if that man smiles as he tells me the sun is going to rise in the morning, he'd have me doubting the phenomenon for the first time. Having said that, he knew his stuff and skewered Call-Me-Dave several times. But he looked like the desperate opposition, not the incumbent.
I agree that Cameron looked Prime Ministerial, in a John Major fin de siècle kind of way. He looked tired, and continued to avoid any real detail. I thought he came off badly on immigration and defence (surprisingly) and wet on the economy (unsurprisingly). As a natural conservative voter, he depresses me and made no inroads into changing my opinion that he will be a disaster. He wore that petulant frown too often, which makes him look like the bad people are taking away the victory daddy promised, and his brain can't think of an answer.
Early days, but it was a decent debate.
Originally Posted by Subotan:
I thought Clegg was pretty impressive. He managed to shake off the "Cameron-lite" perception that has haunted him since he became leader, whilst Brown did OK, considering it was Brown. Although there was no loser, there was certainly a winner, Clegg.
that appears to be the consensus at the telegraph, not read the articles but the headlines all talk about clegg coming out ahead.I thought Clegg was pretty impressive. He managed to shake off the "Cameron-lite" perception that has haunted him since he became leader, whilst Brown did OK, considering it was Brown. Although there was no loser, there was certainly a winner, Clegg.
Originally Posted by Psychonaut:
It'll almost certainly be a hung-parliament, which is the best outcome (other than a Lib Dems win, not happening). A clear cut win for the Tories would be disastrous, absolutely disastrous.
would you care to firm up that prediction with a call on who will lead the coalition parliament after the election ruckus settles down?It'll almost certainly be a hung-parliament, which is the best outcome (other than a Lib Dems win, not happening
). A clear cut win for the Tories would be disastrous, absolutely disastrous.people need to go balls-to-the-wall and call the result, so they can be added to the sweep-stake.............. :p
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in other news, CEBR predicts GDP £20b higher by 2020 under tory government:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...forecasts.html
Originally Posted by :
The Centre for Economics and Business Research has increased its forecast of economic growth in Britain, predicting GDP would be about £20bn higher by 2020 if the Conservatives gain power.
By Angela Monaghan
Published: 6:15AM BST 16 Apr 2010
The leading think tank forecast gross domestic product (GDP) would grow by 1.3pc and 1.4pc in 2011 and 2012 respectively, compared with earlier forecasts of 0.8pc and 1.1pc growth.
It left its 2010 forecast unchanged at 1.2pc, and said the upgrades for the following two years were based on a Conservative victory at the election, and a more buoyant world economy.
Despite the upgrades, the think-tank's figures are far less optimistic than the Chancellor's March Budget predictions of 3.25pc growth in 2011 and 3.5pc growth in 2012, which the CEBR described as "highly optimistic".
Charles Davis, senior economist at the CEBR, warned: "The upward revision to growth should not be taken to imply that the pressure is off as far as public finances are concerned. Whoever wins power will have to take tough decisions."
Mr Davis said about £35bn of extra fiscal tightening on top of that announced in the Budget would be required to sufficiently reduce Britain's deficit.
The CEBR said its forecasts assumed the bond market would effectively force the same scale of fiscal tightening irrespective of which party formed the next Government. It said it had therefore assumed spending cuts and tax increases that were not included in the party manifestos.
It said that should the Conservatives win the election, GDP was likely to be £20bn higher by 2020 than it would be if a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition was in power, because the Conservatives were more likely to promote a low-tax environment.
It calculated that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition would result in £20bn more in tax rises and spending cuts £20bn lower by 2015, compared with a Conservative Government.
"We expect that in a hung parliament with a Lib-Lab pact the deficit will probably be eliminated more slowly; with more tax rises and fewer public spending cuts," said Douglas McWilliams, chief executive at the CEBR. "But this does very much depend on the financial markets allowing this. There is a real possibility that they might take fright and force more draconian cuts. Whatever happens, a higher tax strategy is likely to lead to significantly slower economic growth."
Under the two scenarios, growth was slightly faster under a hung parliament in the first three years, CEBR said. However, between 2015 and 2020, it said a "low-tax, low-spending government" would benefit, with the economy growing about 0.3pc faster per year.
"Whoever wins the election, we will be in for a tough couple of years of sluggish growth at best as the budget deficit issue is addressed," said Mr McWilliams.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research has increased its forecast of economic growth in Britain, predicting GDP would be about £20bn higher by 2020 if the Conservatives gain power.
By Angela Monaghan
Published: 6:15AM BST 16 Apr 2010
The leading think tank forecast gross domestic product (GDP) would grow by 1.3pc and 1.4pc in 2011 and 2012 respectively, compared with earlier forecasts of 0.8pc and 1.1pc growth.
It left its 2010 forecast unchanged at 1.2pc, and said the upgrades for the following two years were based on a Conservative victory at the election, and a more buoyant world economy.
Despite the upgrades, the think-tank's figures are far less optimistic than the Chancellor's March Budget predictions of 3.25pc growth in 2011 and 3.5pc growth in 2012, which the CEBR described as "highly optimistic".
Charles Davis, senior economist at the CEBR, warned: "The upward revision to growth should not be taken to imply that the pressure is off as far as public finances are concerned. Whoever wins power will have to take tough decisions."
Mr Davis said about £35bn of extra fiscal tightening on top of that announced in the Budget would be required to sufficiently reduce Britain's deficit.
The CEBR said its forecasts assumed the bond market would effectively force the same scale of fiscal tightening irrespective of which party formed the next Government. It said it had therefore assumed spending cuts and tax increases that were not included in the party manifestos.
It said that should the Conservatives win the election, GDP was likely to be £20bn higher by 2020 than it would be if a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition was in power, because the Conservatives were more likely to promote a low-tax environment.
It calculated that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition would result in £20bn more in tax rises and spending cuts £20bn lower by 2015, compared with a Conservative Government.
"We expect that in a hung parliament with a Lib-Lab pact the deficit will probably be eliminated more slowly; with more tax rises and fewer public spending cuts," said Douglas McWilliams, chief executive at the CEBR. "But this does very much depend on the financial markets allowing this. There is a real possibility that they might take fright and force more draconian cuts. Whatever happens, a higher tax strategy is likely to lead to significantly slower economic growth."
Under the two scenarios, growth was slightly faster under a hung parliament in the first three years, CEBR said. However, between 2015 and 2020, it said a "low-tax, low-spending government" would benefit, with the economy growing about 0.3pc faster per year.
"Whoever wins the election, we will be in for a tough couple of years of sluggish growth at best as the budget deficit issue is addressed," said Mr McWilliams.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
would you care to firm up that prediction with a call on who will lead the coalition parliament after the election ruckus settles down?
Not at this early stage no.would you care to firm up that prediction with a call on who will lead the coalition parliament after the election ruckus settles down?
All I know at this stage is that my vote doesn't count for anything: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/
ya big girl, show some stones.......................... :p
I think Cameron has more to fear from Clegg than Brown does. I think you will see Labour continuing to 'talk about their policy' (repeat same soundbites) and the Conservatives will step up their attacks on the Lib Dems. The Cons need the floaters to win, Labour just needs the floaters to not vote Tory to win.
My prediction - narrow Labour win.
My prediction - narrow Labour win.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
in other news, CEBR predicts GDP £20b higher by 2020 under tory government:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...forecasts.html
They talk a lot of balls though:in other news, CEBR predicts GDP £20b higher by 2020 under tory government:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...forecasts.html
Pound-could-soon-be-worth-less-than-euro-warns-CEBR
They are an 'independent' research agency who come up with whatever conclusion the people paying for the research want:
SAB Miller pay for research that says minimum alcohol pricing is a bad idea
Yes, predictions are always fun as one doesn't need anything like evidence. But let's face it: all partys do it to support their latest plan - how locking up criminials will "save" billions to care in the community will "save" billions... Who can truly say?
The election system is bias enough that Labour can get a majority will a much smaller percentage of the populace than the Tories. I hope for a hung parliment at least, preverably a slight Tory win (seeing as UKIP aren't going to win masses of seats.
The election system is bias enough that Labour can get a majority will a much smaller percentage of the populace than the Tories. I hope for a hung parliment at least, preverably a slight Tory win (seeing as UKIP aren't going to win masses of seats.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I think Cameron has more to fear from Clegg than Brown does. I think you will see Labour continuing to 'talk about their policy' (repeat same soundbites) and the Conservatives will step up their attacks on the Lib Dems. The Cons need the floaters to win, Labour just needs the floaters to not vote Tory to win.
My prediction - narrow Labour win.
good man. :DI think Cameron has more to fear from Clegg than Brown does. I think you will see Labour continuing to 'talk about their policy' (repeat same soundbites) and the Conservatives will step up their attacks on the Lib Dems. The Cons need the floaters to win, Labour just needs the floaters to not vote Tory to win.
My prediction - narrow Labour win.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Yes, predictions are always fun as one doesn't need anything like evidence. But let's face it: all partys do it to support their latest plan - how locking up criminials will "save" billions to care in the community will "save" billions... Who can truly say?
The election system is bias enough that Labour can get a majority will a much smaller percentage of the populace than the Tories. I hope for a hung parliment at least, preverably a slight Tory win (seeing as UKIP aren't going to win masses of seats.
but what do you think is going to happen, nail your colours to the mast.........?Yes, predictions are always fun as one doesn't need anything like evidence. But let's face it: all partys do it to support their latest plan - how locking up criminials will "save" billions to care in the community will "save" billions... Who can truly say?
The election system is bias enough that Labour can get a majority will a much smaller percentage of the populace than the Tories. I hope for a hung parliment at least, preverably a slight Tory win (seeing as UKIP aren't going to win masses of seats.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
good man. :D
but what do you think is going to happen, nail your colours to the mast.........?
Hung parliment. So much disillusionment for Labour, distrust of Tories which will probably increase overal share to others. Probably only Lib Dems will see this translated into seats though.good man. :D
but what do you think is going to happen, nail your colours to the mast.........?
I really hope I'm wrong. A party with a majority has enough intertia. No party majority is a recepie for paralysis. If the same as heppened last time occurs, no party will want to cut anything as there's always a view to a new election being called and who wants to be the bad guy?
The debate for us ITV-deprived foreigners:
Youtube Video
I've been watching some of it just now. Not all of it, as I got a tad bored and switched to more exciting videos, such as the 1978 Sunderland darts championschip.
Youtube Video
I've been watching some of it just now. Not all of it, as I got a tad bored and switched to more exciting videos, such as the 1978 Sunderland darts championschip.
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
what do you think is going to happen
No majority. I predict Brown will turn out massively hung. He'll refuse to get into bed with the LibDems, making it all even harder for him than it already is. New elections after eightteen months.what do you think is going to happen
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Hung parliment. So much disillusionment for Labour, distrust of Tories which will probably increase overal share to others. Probably only Lib Dems will see this translated into seats though.
I really hope I'm wrong. A party with a majority has enough intertia. No party majority is a recepie for paralysis. If the same as heppened last time occurs, no party will want to cut anything as there's always a view to a new election being called and who wants to be the bad guy?
so out the other side of the election train-wreck you foresee................... a conservative minority government, or a lib-lab coalition?Hung parliment. So much disillusionment for Labour, distrust of Tories which will probably increase overal share to others. Probably only Lib Dems will see this translated into seats though.
I really hope I'm wrong. A party with a majority has enough intertia. No party majority is a recepie for paralysis. If the same as heppened last time occurs, no party will want to cut anything as there's always a view to a new election being called and who wants to be the bad guy?
BBC America last night blamed the politeness of the three way debate on American influence. Evidently they wanted to see a more brutal, question time-like approach to the debate. I think this is the first time the U.S. was blamed for causing things to be too polite.
Gordon would ally with Satan to keep his claws on power. The lib dems will have demands for a coalition, and I imagine Gordon would accept almost anything. So, assuming no majority in power, I would see Lib-Lab coalition rather than Tory minority. There is a precedent in Scotland, after all.
Can two leaders both petition the queen to be PM? What happens then?
Can two leaders both petition the queen to be PM? What happens then?
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
BBC America last night blamed the politeness of the three way debate on American influence. Evidently they wanted to see a more brutal, question time-like approach to the debate. I think this is the first time the U.S. was blamed for causing things to be too polite.
US politeness has two faces: it is a sign of refreshingly good manners. And it can be plasticy, slick. In politics, obviously the latter aspect dominates. Studied sound bites, evasive answers, pandering to market segments. Not to mention, middle-aged men with more make-up than 21 year old girls on a night out, smiles revealing teeth that are too white, and hair that stays in exact artificial shape regardless of weather conditions.BBC America last night blamed the politeness of the three way debate on American influence. Evidently they wanted to see a more brutal, question time-like approach to the debate. I think this is the first time the U.S. was blamed for causing things to be too polite.
God forbid the second aspects creeps into European politics, and especially that of the UK, even more than it already does.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
so out the other side of the election train-wreck you foresee................... a conservative minority government, or a lib-lab coalition?
Go on, give us your prediction between the two. After thirteen years of Labour in government, reaching a low point in approval rates, it is not difficult predict the other guys will get in. It's akin to correctly predicting Man Ure will beat Stoke city. Predictions are about close calls, like 'will Manchester beat Bayern Munich?'. When Labour was trailing behind by fourteen points, JAG several months ago predicted this gap would be closed. Now that's what I call political instinct.so out the other side of the election train-wreck you foresee................... a conservative minority government, or a lib-lab coalition?
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Gordon would ally with Satan to keep his claws on power. The lib dems will have demands for a coalition, and I imagine Gordon would accept almost anything. So, assuming no majority in power, I would see Lib-Lab coalition rather than Tory minority. There is a precedent in Scotland, after all.
Can two leaders both petition the queen to be PM? What happens then?
roger that.Gordon would ally with Satan to keep his claws on power. The lib dems will have demands for a coalition, and I imagine Gordon would accept almost anything. So, assuming no majority in power, I would see Lib-Lab coalition rather than Tory minority. There is a precedent in Scotland, after all.
Can two leaders both petition the queen to be PM? What happens then?
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
US politeness has two faces: it is a sign of refreshingly good manners. And it can be plasticy, slick. In politics, obviously the latter aspect dominates. Studied sound bites, evasive answers, pandering to market segments. Not to mention, middle-aged men with more make-up than 21 year old girls on a night out, smiles revealing teeth that are too white, and hair that stays in exact artificial shape regardless of weather conditions.
God forbid the second aspects creeps into European politics, and especially that of the UK, even more than it already does.
Go on, give us your prediction between the two. After thirteen years of Labour in government, reaching a low point in approval rates, it is not difficult predict the other guys will get in. It's akin to correctly predicting Man Ure will beat Stoke city. Predictions are about close calls, like 'will Manchester beat Bayern Munich?'. When Labour was trailing behind by fourteen points, JAG several months ago predicted this gap would be closed. Now that's what I call political instinct.
my prediction is noted, what about yours?US politeness has two faces: it is a sign of refreshingly good manners. And it can be plasticy, slick. In politics, obviously the latter aspect dominates. Studied sound bites, evasive answers, pandering to market segments. Not to mention, middle-aged men with more make-up than 21 year old girls on a night out, smiles revealing teeth that are too white, and hair that stays in exact artificial shape regardless of weather conditions.
God forbid the second aspects creeps into European politics, and especially that of the UK, even more than it already does.
Go on, give us your prediction between the two. After thirteen years of Labour in government, reaching a low point in approval rates, it is not difficult predict the other guys will get in. It's akin to correctly predicting Man Ure will beat Stoke city. Predictions are about close calls, like 'will Manchester beat Bayern Munich?'. When Labour was trailing behind by fourteen points, JAG several months ago predicted this gap would be closed. Now that's what I call political instinct.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2470254
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
The debate for us ITV-deprived foreigners:
I've been watching some of it just now. Not all of it, as I got a tad bored and switched to more riveting videos, such as the 1978 Sunderland darts championschip.
I am surprised the BBC didn't host the show, that would have been the obvious choice.The debate for us ITV-deprived foreigners:
I've been watching some of it just now. Not all of it, as I got a tad bored and switched to more riveting videos, such as the 1978 Sunderland darts championschip.
Iirc there will be three debates, each hosted by the three major channels, ITV, Channel 4, BBC
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Iirc there will be three debates, each hosted by the three major channels, ITV, Channel 4, BBC
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ection-debatesIirc there will be three debates, each hosted by the three major channels, ITV, Channel 4, BBC
Originally Posted by :
Three live face-to-face debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will take place in mid-evening weekday slots in front of studio audiences on BBC, ITV and Sky News.
General election 2010
Broadcasters reveal details of leaders' election debates
Three live face-to-face debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will take place in mid-evening weekday slots in front of studio audiences on BBC, ITV and Sky News.
The first debate, screened on ITV1 and moderated by Alastair Stewart, will be filmed in the north-west of England and look at the theme of domestic affairs.
The second debate will be screened on Sky News and moderated by Adam Boulton. Its themed section will be on international affairs and it will come from the south-west of England.
The final debate will be screened on BBC1, moderated by David Dimbleby, and will focus on the theme of economic affairs. The programme will be based in the Midlands.
mor info:Three live face-to-face debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will take place in mid-evening weekday slots in front of studio audiences on BBC, ITV and Sky News.
General election 2010
Broadcasters reveal details of leaders' election debates
Three live face-to-face debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will take place in mid-evening weekday slots in front of studio audiences on BBC, ITV and Sky News.
The first debate, screened on ITV1 and moderated by Alastair Stewart, will be filmed in the north-west of England and look at the theme of domestic affairs.
The second debate will be screened on Sky News and moderated by Adam Boulton. Its themed section will be on international affairs and it will come from the south-west of England.
The final debate will be screened on BBC1, moderated by David Dimbleby, and will focus on the theme of economic affairs. The programme will be based in the Midlands.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ates-will-work
Wowww
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...an-icm-poll-pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...an-icm-poll-pm
Originally Posted by :
Nick Clegg has surged into contention as a potential prime minister, according to a Guardian/ICM poll carried out following last night's TV leaders' debate.
A quarter of voters who watched the three leaders on the ITV programme say they will switch their vote, with most changing to the Liberal Democrats.
Clegg emerges from the telephone poll as the overwhelming winner, with 51% who watched saying he came out on top. David Cameron and Gordon Brown trail in far behind: 20% say Cameron won and 19% Brown.
The poll, based on a sample of 505 voters who had previously told ICM how they would vote, found Conservative and Labour supporters also thought Clegg won the event. While 44% of Tories thought Cameron won, 46% thought Clegg did. Among Labour voters, 43% said Brown won, and 44% Clegg.
The Guardian poll coincides with a survey of voting intentions carried out by ComRes for ITV. It showed support for the Conservatives was unchanged at 35%, with Labour down one point on 28%, and the Lib Dems up three on 24%.
Among those voters who had watched the debate, the surge in Lib Dem support was more dramatic: up 14 points to 35%, only a shade behind the Conservatives on 36%, who were down three. Labour languished in third place, at 24%, down three points.
According to the ICM poll for the Guardian, Clegg appears to have won the affections of voters across the board. He now runs Brown neck and neck as the man voters think would make the best prime minister, 29% to 29%. Cameron remains just ahead on 33%.
Clegg is also far ahead as the leader who offers substance over spin. Cameron comes off worst among people who saw the debate, with 47% saying he is more spin than substance against 36% who say that of Brown and 11% Clegg.
Cameron performed particularly badly with Lib Dem supporters, with 61% saying he offered spin over substance. That suggests the Tory leader's appeal to centre ground voters is faltering.
The debate had a clear impact on people's voting intentions, although the effect may fade as polling day approaches. Among people who saw the debate, 23% say they will change their mind, including 25% of Conservatives and 21% of Labour voters.
Most of them are going to the Lib Dems, with 54% of people changing their minds saying they will move to the party. A further 17% say they will switch to Labour. The Conservatives have attracted the least new support with only 13% saying they plan to move their vote to the party.
• ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 505 people by telephone on 15th April 2010. It re-interviewed people who had previously been selected at random who told us they would be watching the debate and had agreed to be interviewed again. The sample has been weighted to the profile of all people selected at random who previously stated they would be watching the debate. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Nick Clegg has surged into contention as a potential prime minister, according to a Guardian/ICM poll carried out following last night's TV leaders' debate.
A quarter of voters who watched the three leaders on the ITV programme say they will switch their vote, with most changing to the Liberal Democrats.
Clegg emerges from the telephone poll as the overwhelming winner, with 51% who watched saying he came out on top. David Cameron and Gordon Brown trail in far behind: 20% say Cameron won and 19% Brown.
The poll, based on a sample of 505 voters who had previously told ICM how they would vote, found Conservative and Labour supporters also thought Clegg won the event. While 44% of Tories thought Cameron won, 46% thought Clegg did. Among Labour voters, 43% said Brown won, and 44% Clegg.
The Guardian poll coincides with a survey of voting intentions carried out by ComRes for ITV. It showed support for the Conservatives was unchanged at 35%, with Labour down one point on 28%, and the Lib Dems up three on 24%.
Among those voters who had watched the debate, the surge in Lib Dem support was more dramatic: up 14 points to 35%, only a shade behind the Conservatives on 36%, who were down three. Labour languished in third place, at 24%, down three points.According to the ICM poll for the Guardian, Clegg appears to have won the affections of voters across the board. He now runs Brown neck and neck as the man voters think would make the best prime minister, 29% to 29%. Cameron remains just ahead on 33%.
Clegg is also far ahead as the leader who offers substance over spin. Cameron comes off worst among people who saw the debate, with 47% saying he is more spin than substance against 36% who say that of Brown and 11% Clegg.
Cameron performed particularly badly with Lib Dem supporters, with 61% saying he offered spin over substance. That suggests the Tory leader's appeal to centre ground voters is faltering.
The debate had a clear impact on people's voting intentions, although the effect may fade as polling day approaches. Among people who saw the debate, 23% say they will change their mind, including 25% of Conservatives and 21% of Labour voters.
Most of them are going to the Lib Dems, with 54% of people changing their minds saying they will move to the party. A further 17% say they will switch to Labour. The Conservatives have attracted the least new support with only 13% saying they plan to move their vote to the party.
• ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 505 people by telephone on 15th April 2010. It re-interviewed people who had previously been selected at random who told us they would be watching the debate and had agreed to be interviewed again. The sample has been weighted to the profile of all people selected at random who previously stated they would be watching the debate. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
People are idiots. 90 mins of talking and people are prepared to alter who runs the country for the next c. 5 years 
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
People are idiots. 90 mins of talking and people are prepared to alter who runs the country for the next c. 5 years
Which is still better than closely following politics for years only to then vote the tor...wrong bunch in.People are idiots. 90 mins of talking and people are prepared to alter who runs the country for the next c. 5 years
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
People are idiots. 90 mins of talking and people are prepared to alter who runs the country for the next c. 5 years
Yet Nick clegg was always the best choice in the first place, but he got next to zero air-time compared to David Cameron and Gordon Brown. So in actual fact, the TV debate is a success. I mean, they have a political mastermind of Vince Cable behind them as well, if there was some one in House of Commons with an actual acutement for politics, it is him. Not many of them there, only a few others like Tony Benn.People are idiots. 90 mins of talking and people are prepared to alter who runs the country for the next c. 5 years
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO