TV Debate - who did best?

agreed Cameron should be worried. ALtho' I wasn't planning to vote Lib-Dem I am reconsidering: there is something pleasing about seeing the Lib-Dems surge as most of them join never expecting to be in government. So really nice if they were to do well. NC for PM!

Sunday Times poll is around the same as mumsnet, with 70% support for Clegg (mumsnet has 73%):

Most snap polls rushed out after Thursday?s debate suggested that while Clegg was the victor, Cameron had come second ahead of Brown.

The Sunday Times Poll of 1,490 adults conducted over the past two days confirmed that Clegg had been the most ?impressive? with 70% backing him. But Brown took second place with 12% and Cameron, who had been considered the favourite to win the debate, trailed in third with just 10% support.

Cameron should be worried, no one expected Brown to do well out of these appearances, but he's actually come in second.

I am not particularly anti David Cameron - although I am not over impressed with him - but I am worried about extreme right-wing Tories, who I think are being kept very quiet at the moment. If the Conservatives win, I really do think that we will see a lot of mad old hangers-and-floggers coming out of the woodwork, and we will be back with the "nasty" Conservative party again, no matter what DC says.

Thanks snowlady, thats cleared a few things up in my head. Its always those of us who fall in that income bracket that get it the worst! I think I should read the lib dem manifesto. Its really interesting how many people are anti-Tory at the moment, but should they be surprised? People are sick of jobs for the boys, hereditary peers and the like. The torys seem to me to be a bit 'Let them eat cake'.

Read yesterdays Daily Mail and Telegraph - not my normal papers - and the Tory boys are absolutely bricking it - Clegg bashing is now going on full steamm ahead. Hilarious - he has really got them worried.

Ps. should have said above the liberals have said they are cutting tax credits for top 20% of earners..presume this includes the 40-60k bracket but am not sure.

italylovingmummy - this is the point I was trying to make above. My suspicion is that people earning 40-60k will lose out with either of the three main parties. The liberals have already said they will cut tax credits. The tories are keeping quiet but I expect they'll cut tax credits and child benefit. They have said the married/civil partnership allowance will not be paid to those earning over £45k. The labour party have not guaranteed they will keep things as they are and are proposing to spend thousands on nursery places for 2 yr olds..assume these will be paid for by cutting tax credits for those earning over 40k.

Interestingly in the telegraph (right wing paper)it suggests that people in the 40-60k bracket (think this was what I read) will be best off under the lib dems..assume this is due to the no tax under £10,000 policy. The lib dems seem to be proposing smaller class sizes which would improve state education. However I want to know from them that they will be improving all state schools not just those in deprived areas.

Zazi - somehow I'm not as surprised as I should be - which is all the more worrying.

Noddy - Good point. IMO which ever party is the 'winner' will be taking a 'poison chalice'. For Labour - a disastrous 4th term could send them back into the political wilderness. And Nick Clegg should be very careful about entering a coalition with Labour, given their apparent willingness to find scape goats!

There are an awful lot of people, including my family, whose total household income is less than £50k - which party is going to look after us? At the end of the day, there are many people whose household income is £100k+ and we should not be put in the same bracket as them. Tax credits and child benefit mean all the difference to us as a family. What are Tory and Lib Dem's stance on families whose total income is £40-50k? Labour aren't perfect, but at least we do get something.

I think NC is prob hoping to gain some extra seats and become a real alternatib
ve but to win would be a disaster for the lib dems.Thje economy is in a much worse state than any of them are letting on and if they were to win and then the true mess beomes apparent and they can't put it right they will be back to square one in 4 yrs time.Better they have a slow burn and win next time

Seems that E Balls requested rewriting of Ofsted reports to support S Shoesmith's firing. Is anyone else alarmed by this sort of thing?

It may be possible to convince me that this current Labour govmt believes it's doing the right thing for Britain. I find their operational tactics Orwellian, and I don't agree with their centralisation policies.

So however elder-statesmanly GB comes across, I can't support the Labour party.

Are all the three main parties going to take tax credits away from higher rate tax payers? They need to come clean on this.

It would be nice if the politicians could bear cost of living in mind when they make all these decisions based on income. A salary of £40k goes a lot further in some parts of the country than others. The lib dem local council tax would mean people living in small houses but paying higher rate tax would be worse off..I'd rather stick with council tax.

The tory civil partnership/marriage tax break is also targeted at those earning less than £40k. People earning less than this can also apply for private school bursaries and have help with childcare costs.

It seems those families in the £40-60k income bracket are being squeezed to give more and more hand outs and free childcare to those on lower incomes whilst having to pay the full cost of their own childcare. Obviously I agree that the lowest paid need more government support but those on normal incomes are being squeezed too much to pay for it all. Round here 40k is not high as in my constituency the average income is around 60-70k I think.

Overall I hate the way the press is so biaised and the way that the press and big business do all they can to keep the main two parties in power preventing any change.

Even if one doesn't agree with all the liberal policies at least they will bring in proportional representation and everyone's vote will count. I think the lib dems are also strongest on the environment of the three main parties.

I've loooked at the stats and I just don't think compared to an indpendant pole they are significant.

I did not vote in the Mumsnet pole because the site seems very Labour biased/Gordycentric which is fine but any mumsnet pole is not going to be representative sample of the electorate.

I also wonder how many "new" members the site has had post all the media hype there has been about the site in the pre election run up.

Swede - Actually I like people with an elite education (especially potential leaders of our country). I would like more state educated elite - but that is (as they say) a whole other thread!!

Jackstarbright - I understand. It's much easier to forgive a man his elite education if he hasn't got a face like a smacked arse.

Swedes That's interesting (Clegg not wanting Cable). I think Cable's lost the plot lately. The (original £1m) mansion tax was plain daft. There must be loads of £1m houses in his Twickenham constituency. Who's going to vote themselves an extra £10k tax bill? And the £2,500 bankers bonus cap is totally unworkable. But I do like Clegg - elite education and all!!

Aitch I agree there is a lot of silly point scoring that goes on on all sides. But Labour have had many very good years and it is a little disinegenuous to start ticking off the norty banks now. (and suddenly wanting voting reform, and remembering that they forgot to reform the house of lords....) Tories would have been light touch too but they would still have gold reserves and they would have saved up for the bad times. We would not now be servicing expensive government debt in the same way we are - so there would not be the threat to public sector jobs and our AAA credit rating.

DP lost his job pretty early on in the crisis as he works in fin svces in the city. About 50% of my road lost their jobs.

Edam - I don't think Clegg wants Vince as Chancellor either from what I've heard.

Did you all know Clegg is a product of £30,000 pa Westminster School? Eton is £345 per annum cheaper.

i meant the global mess, rather than the personal one. although i have plenty of friends who are being made redundant who would argue that point with you.

i've never suggested that politics and business shouldn't have a good relationship, not at all. but i'm hearing a lot of tories dissing GB for being too free and easy with the banks and business etc, as if they'd have done a damn thing different. bloody DC banging on about the top business people at that hustings night, while criticising GB for doing what they told him to do in the past. that was ridiculous.

Aitch - and most people are actually not in a mess. It has so far been much less steep and less painful than the recession in the 90s for example. But it could get a lot worse. Esp if this volcano keeps belching.

It's ridiculous to think a government shouldn't court the private sector - it is what pays for everything.

lol. you wish.

Aitch - No they weren't Tory AT ALL. They did the light touch stuff alright. BUT They didn't SAVE UP during the good times to manage the bad times - they were profligate. Don't forget that every £1 the city earned, Labour were getting a sizeable chunk.

And Labour failed to reform anything, they jsut chucked money at things which was easy as there was a lot of it about.

LOL at running dogs of capitalism - it's the only type of capitalism. But you should use fiscal policy to SAVE UP for the bad times.

but it was sooking up to the old running dogs of capitalism that has got us into all this mess, Swedes. you can't possibly say that GB and Blair weren't positively Tory wrt their approach to the business nobs. you really can't have it all ways here.

Justine, can you let us know how many mumsnetters participated in the mumsnet poll?