I think someone in the TV world has misunderstood the British constitution. The British people do not elect a Prime Minister in the way the Americans elect a President (and he is not our head of state). We people elect a Member of Parliament; the person who leads the largest party or the one with the overall majority and thinks he has therefore enough support usually goes to the Queen to seek permission to form a Government. He is really the Queen’s Prime Minister. I wonder if Her Majesty could be bothered looking at her television or listening to her radio tonight? Were I her, I shouldn’t have bothered.
The “debate” itself was largely drivel, and terrifically boring. The least worst performance was from Cameron again; he even managed a straight-forward(ish) if rather inadequate answer to a question on the Pope’s State Visit which should never have been allowed to be asked: yes, I welcome his Visit but I do not agree with him on a number of issues. He was pretty reasonable on other issues too. That’s the best that can be said.
I really don’t approve of the debates: people say they are ‘fascinating’ and ‘important’, but I think they are boring and nondescript. They are also turning our politics more and more into a contest of popularity (as if that had not happened too much already). The other aspect I dislike is that people seem more and more to think politicians should “work together”. That is the last thing I want: ye gods! At least now we can change the government, if there were only a “Party of All the Talents” a “National Unity Party”, how would we ever get rid of them?