Clearly you were anti-Brown before it started. As for Cameron... he would have done exactly the same if he was in Brown's position. Go back to the 1992 election. Tory fear mongering, 'covering up' the problems as best they could. It doesn't mean they are lying, of course, it means they have a very limited space to acknowledge issues they have. They have to cherry-pick, just as the other parties play on media manipulation and public ignorance of what is going on. The whole game is a sham. This is why we need a new system of government. A hung parliament is the best outcome in my opinion because it will show what cooperation can do over petty infighting and shallow point making, that thrives on an ignorant public. Not even the MPs are fully aware of what is going on. There's just too much information to cope with.

what does the political divide in UK look like..is it clear cut as USA. eg left liberals/right conservatives

It's fairly similar, though the parties are slightly closer.

Left(ish) - Labour

Centre-leftish - Lib Dems

Centre Right - Conservative

That's how I've always seen it anyway.

I missed the 'debate' last night as I was at a pub quiz, where the question reader couldn't read half the words on it, that was far funnier.

For me, Clegg won.

Of course, he had it the easiest, as he was winning just by being there. All he needed to do was come across as credible, and the situation between the three parties would do the rest: fortunately for him, he did exactly that. Brown was substantive but not very personable, but there was little else he could say or do in his position; indeed, I'll go as far to say he did better than I expected. Cameron seemed uncomfortable and a little out-of-his-depth (almost boyish and lacking gravitas) when matters moved beyond strict scripting, but managed fairly well when he was regurgitating pre-prepared lines (which was best demonstrated by his closing lines). Brown was certainly the most authorative, and clearly a Prime Minister (for all he has his haters), but was out of his element, and kept falling back on Westminster jargon and combativeness to his detriment. Clegg, by comparison, was sure-footed, and was well prepared to address the people on their terms, not his, which helped him come across clearly. Cameron was obviously under orders not to be combative (unlike Brown), and that stilted his performance, especially as his policies were seemlingly lacking substance when pressured.

For me, the biggest disappointment was the lack of idological clarity between the parties, and the lack of clear message. They all sounded a little too similar, fighting as they were for the middle ground. More punch is needed to get through the general apathy. For example, compare Cameron's loose govern yourself slogans with the clear messages of Thatcher's day, such as 'I will empower you to buy your council houses!' Back in the 80s, that was a persuasive policy for many, and directly targetted a classically non-Conservative voter base with an obviously conservative policy (although, it didn't turn out well in practice); for all it may sound fainty prosaic today, so grounded are we in Thatcher's view of Britain, back then it was big news. Cameron (I'll single him out as he's the one trying to take power), has no policy with such obvious clarity of ideology and targetting that differentiates him from Labour. His position is all a bit vague and elusive, a bit not-Labour, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that he's exactly what he was originally touted as: the Conservative Tony Blair -- Tony Mark 2, with largely the same policies as Labour, but a bit more focussed on the rich that finance him. If you voted Tony, you're safe voting David! Not a surprise, for Tony Blair was an unmitigated success story for all his flaws, but I'd rather not have him back in power again.

Indeed, for me the most amusing part of the evening was Cameron's stongest showing was his eloquent discussion on the NHS. The NHS. A Conservative. It's almost a parody of politics. Certainly makes it fun to watch.

Anyway, round 1 to Clegg.

Clegg: Proved he deserved to be in the debates.

Brown: Uncomfortable outside of Westminster.

Cameron: Floundered when taken beyond his scripts.

Nothing discussed wasn't already mentioned in the manifesto's, So it was a fairly useless debate really. It would of been nice if they had been asked questions about subjects that haven't been discussed alot this election tbh. Although imo clegg won that one he was more direct with the audience and managed to separate himself from the other two more, I agree with cleggs views on getting rid of trident 100 billion is a hell of a lot of money too spend renewing some missiles we won't ever need.

Its a deterent. We don't plan on using them. It's just to send a message to N.Korea and Iran that if they mess around with us or any of our Allies, they would get the shit blown out of them.

The world is fragile and this protection is needed. I guess you would say lets not have police walking around the streets? Or maybe we should not have an army?

  So what about all the nuclear weaponry we already have? We could already wipe out China, North Korea, Iran and a number of other countries with our warhead stock.

As has already been stated we could blow the shit out of them without the need to spend 100 billion updated our nuclear weapons (which aren't exactly the most eco freindly of things and have a ridicoulous half life.) the world isn't that fragile tbh, We aren't going to be attacked by iran or N.korea our regular army is enough of an deterent to ensure this (We are actually more of a threat to them). And if the world is fragile it's because people keep on making more nuclear weapons, You wander why N.korea and Iran want nuclear weapons it's because USA are walking around with a ton of them and are a massive threat to the middle east.

The money will be spent on either replacing or prolonging the Vangaurd Class submarines which are the delivery system for the missiles not on the actual weapons themselves (the total number we have will likely be cut). Where is this £100Bn figure from? The replacemnt of the subs is projected to cost up to £20Bn at most afaik (less if only 3 new subs are built instead of 4).

The question for me on this issue is whether there is another method of delivery that could be use that can reduce these costs. I guess the issue with land based launchers is that they are susceptible to attack.

@FootballFan

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that just because some people believe in nuclear disarmament that they are some kind of tree-hugging pacifists.