My DW wants to know why Nick Clegg is attracting female votes: She just does not get it.

Monkeydaddy, it's clear from Facebook groups that the younger generation look up policy as if it's the most natural thing in the world (and they know how to argue it, too). People on here look up policy. Those who aren't as online as much watch the debates.

In all groups, however, I think this election has brought a major increase in how much effort people are putting into learning about policies. Just think what the norm used to be - people voted totally tribally, or on the basis of what the Sun told them etc.

Should have said, thanks for the apology and glad to hear it was mistakes in translation rather than anything else.

Image rather than policy has been a factor for generations though. It's what boosted Kennedy after the TV debate with Nixon - people who heard it on radio thought Nixon had won, those who saw it on TV reacted to Nixon looking grim and unshaven compared to Kennedy's youth (and nous in actually putting on make up to appear on TV).

edam - apologies if that came out wrongly, I'm not looking to be impressed or to criticise people for discussing things in any way they want. And I agree with you about men and female politicians, my point is that it voting should be about policy and ethics rather than image.

I do worry that, as others have said here, the election could be turned into an X Factor-type poll - based on image rather than policy. Although at least the TV debates (I am watching the Scottish one right now)are getting more people interested.

It would be good to hear from other parties though.

AvadaKedavra - The Lib Dems have published their figures, the other parties haven't. So, glass houses.

WilfandWilma - I'm absolutely staggered that only 25% of the population think that deficit reduction is a priority. No wonder Labour are still polling as high as 26% or whatever they're on now.

And anyway, why do we compare three party leaders having a debate to the X Factor? Would it have been better to have had no debates at all, then - to fight elections using expensive billboards that shout at us, and by calling in political editors one by one to give them smears?

Three people on a podium - it's just so rotten and manipulable, isn't it? Daring to use body language and to brush your hair - shocking. Writing down slogans! Remembering names! The list of crimes goes on and on.

The X Factor election, that's exactly right BeenBeta.

Watched the PEB last night from Lib Dems, how can he afford to do all he is proposing without making massive cuts elsewhere or hiking up taxes?

Take the class sizes thing, he proposes that they'll cut class sizes to 20 in Primary schools. That would cost a blooming fortune to implement, extra staff, extra space needing to be created in schools etc.

Impractical.

We aren't actually trying to impress you, Monkey. Just talking amongst ourselves. And men do actually talk about the sexuality of female politicians - all that horrible sneering at Anne Widdecome, for starters.

Maybe part of the reason for his popularity is because he opposes Trident renewal and perhaps by association, killing thousands of innocent people in pointless wars? That's what I like about the Lib Dems anyway. But I'd take Shirley Williams as Prime Minister before Nick Clegg any day.

I'm sure he's also the best looking, but using comments like "shaggable" in a political discussion doesn't do too much to encourage me to take this site seriously. I suspect I would be (rightly) attacked if I was to take that approach to an analysis of female parliamentary candidates!

Grendels - my small town is home to an agricultural research station with lots of clever scientists (back in the C18th the local squire was big into experimental farming and handed over his manor or something). I just keep my fingers crossed they will come up with something, in a 'this problem is far too difficult for me to solve, hope that lot know what they are doing' kind of way.

Every time I walk past the research station, I find myself thinking nostalgically of O-level History and Turnip Townsend.

Agree with Takver's first post

BeenBeta - that issue was also discussed in some detail, and seen as one of the reasons for actual reductions in yield in some parts of western Europe in the recent past, but they argued that there was a limit to what increased fertiliser quantities could do alone.

Well, the issues discussed were the projected needs for food in the future to feed the growing population of the world, and the different ways in which this could be achieved. The speakers agreed that this would need to involve greatly increased crop yields, that greatly increased crop yields are theoretically possible, but that in practice, crop yields have ceased to increase across much western Europe (have actually started to dip in one or two counties). They agreed that in order to get crop yield increasing to match the theoretical possibilities, targeted investment in applied research and development was needed. One argued (and seemed to me convincing) that because research takes a long time to get into practice when it comes to this kind of applied agriculture, the research needs to start as soon as possible, in order to get benefits in, say, 10 years time. The UK Government does currently invest in research in food crops, but will they continue to?

This makes it sound very dry - it was actually a fascinating conference and I was listening to it thinking 'so basically, we act now or we're all buggered'.

Have been reading wildly differing reports on the amount of food we import lately and just how self-sufficient we are compared to how self-sufficient we can be. I agree that our eye-watering deficit does need to be cut, but how would this actually affect food production? Were proposed/potential cuts to funding in terms of 'food production' covered in the conference GrendelsMum?

Nice use of oleaginous there, unfit, not a word you see around much these days yet one that is perfectly suited to many politicians. Remember Leon Brittan?

Grendels - I'm sure you are right. Idiot governments over the past few years (current one included) seem to have forgotten that we are an island and while it is possible to rely on imported food while the economy is going nicely in most of the West, it leaves you horribly vulnerable in a crisis.

WilfandWilma - That's something I'm really mentally struggling with at the moment. Until this morning, I would have entirely agreed that we need to reduce our deficit by any means possible, and that means radical cuts to everything. Then I attended a conference on food security today, with a range of experts talking about the need for increased food crops in the next 40 years, and I came away thinking 'we're buggered if we cut the funding for this now'. There do seem to be some things which, if we cut the funding now, it seems we'll pay for it later.

He's an oleaginous light-weight just like David Cameron.

I don't understand the current Clegg mania, actually I find it quite depressing. I know he's good looking, sounds sincere and I'd rather spend an evening in the pub with him than DC or GB but I'm really sceptical about many of the pledges he's made in his manifesto.

I wonder if all the people who watched the debate last week and are now going to vote for him really believe that the Lib Dems will do all the things they say they're going to do. Let's be honest, the UK is skint, our national debt is huge and while Nick Clegg loves saying us how honest he's being in telling us about the importance of reducing the deficit, he's put forward some extremely expensive proposals.

I do wonder whether some of the people who say they really like his policies have no idea how much trouble our economy is in at the moment. Apparently only 25% of the electorate think that reducing the deficit should be a priority which is quite shocking - what on earth do the other 75% consider to be a priority??

AvadaKedavra, yep I know what you mean. I voted Labour in 1997 but I had a deep mistrust of Blair at the time which was vindicated. I feel the same way about Cameron now, but it's not a feeling I have about Clegg. Whether or not he gets a chance to disappoint us remains to be seen...

Engaging, handsome (ish), a bit posh, family man, good orator, proposing real change and promising us the world, very earnest and sincere in manner - remind you of anyone about 15 years ago? Look how that turned out...

DH would be horrified if I admitted to fancying Clegg - he was in his year at Westminster and insists he was a) a drip, b) pompous and c) dull. However we watched the debate last night and even he had to admit NC had done pretty well. I didn't see the first one & was quite impressed.

I would rather go for a drink with Nick Clegg (as a mate) than either of the others. That doesn't make him the best candidate for PM imo.

he's quite clean-cut

he reminds me of of a short Peter Jones