I think it was good to see that UKIP are not, no matter how much they try not to be, anything more than a EU protest party. 

Over the last 12 months I thought they were beginning a shift to the mainstream and that worried me but its clear from the debate that they are still just a protest party that will fade into the distance over time. And I don't think they'll get anywhere near the votes that the polls suggest.

So it's agreed - we're all moving to Scotland.

Because NI politics is different or something so they would have had to invite everyone.

Thats the one thing Farage said that I agreed with. 

Basically its policy to get as many people to uni, doing mostly shitty useless degrees now that there are no technical colleges left. 

Now someone is told not to do an apprenticeship - or similar -  if they have any modicum of intelligence at school. So 4 years later armed with a degree in Media Studies they are in the exact same position but with less drive and ambition because their career outlook is a call centre rather than being a skilled tradesman who can grow a business, for example.

And at least us fucking jocks get it for free: Its literally setting people up to fail in life just so a school can say we got X percentage of people into university.

No, they would have had to invite 4 parties from NI.

Tbh, despite thinking Sturgeon was the best, her and Leanne Wood shouldn't have been there, as they don't stand in enough places. Same for DUP.

I disagree Dante I think the leaders from all major parties should stand for debate. Just because I can't personally vote for them doesn't mean they shouldn't be made visible. Otherwise you'll only ever get English politicians standing, and that kind of insular shit where one nation rides roughshod over the others is part of what's caused the discontent in Scotland.

It's time we moved away from this two/three party bollocks anyway. Plenty of people thought the Greens shouldn't be there for example...

EvilRedEye wrote:

Kinda wonder how this will pan out in future. We only had this many parties this time because the Lib Dems have collapsed.

Was it not because they obviously felt forced to include the SNP post referendum and then had to include Greens et al because they get more of the vote. 

If it wasn't for the scope of influence Scottish nationalism is having I think it would have still been Lab/Con/Lib.

Thing is I think everyone broadly agrees that the debates should be more expansive than just the Tories and Labour but it's quite difficult to decide what to do and then apply that over multiple general elections when we're in such a period of transition. Support for the smaller parties is currently unstable and if we end up with another hung parliament there might be quite serious calls to introduce PR before the next election, in which case the focus changes from seats to share of votes, etc. etc.

To be honest, I don't think the decision that was made was terrible. The outcome you want is a coherent but reasonably inclusive debate and breaching double digits of participants in order to include NI parties that don't compete with the major UK-wide parties would have made the whole thing a complete shambles. In this particular election the SNP are even reasonably relevant to English voters due to the relative likelihood of the SNP entering into a confidence and supply agreement with Labour. It sounds as if the NI scene is sufficiently distinct that a separate debate will always suffice.

I think it was a domino effect.

Was originally the big 3 + Ukip THEN SNP were likely to win 50 odd seats but you can't have them without the Welsh and the the greens with their one seat in parliament needed to get involved. Also cameron called for the greens to be included.

It's worth noting that Cameron needed a left wing sheen remover from Miliband as at that time he would have three people attacking his credentials.

I'd pick Miliband over Cameron any day of the week.

Perhaps, but a choice between him and Cameron is no choice at all.

Or in his case: the trade unions.

Me neither but a fair amount of the MP's he "leads" obviously do - which I don't think translates to a very effective political party.

Labour would have this election sown up, compared to the current situation, if they had a different leader. He is the worst type of career politician as far as I'm concerned and that type seems pretty fucking common in the Labour Party at the moment.

davyK wrote:

And seriously. Miliband. A man who back-stabbed his own brother as a leader of the country. Jesus. The guy is a tosser - might make a good wartime leader.

I don't get this backstabbing rhetoric? Both people thought they were right to lead the party and the members voted for ed?

Is ed simply meant to sit and let his brother get on and lead the party as David is owed that shite? just because some tory newspapers think David has a less dorky face.