The Line that Clegg missed

Brown and Cameron both went hard after Clegg on immigration. They used terms such as "caps" and "controls", most importantly calling his policy "amnesty". If I was Clegg I would have said "This is not the language of a fair open Britain, this the languange of American reactionaries". First, because it is. All of the words are used in the American right-wing lexicon to describe the moderate efforts for immigration reform lead by two crazy lefties named Bush and McCain. Second, Clegg can use this to show that he is the change in politics. But he is actually at the heart of being British. Finally, it could provide hours upon hours of clips comparing lines by Cameron and Brown to those of Rush Limbaugh and Tom Tancredo.

Where would Labour be under Blair?

Americans sometimes do not get the movements of British politics. I was only a toddler, but most Americans could not comprehend the removal of Margaret Thatcher. She seemed to be the ultimate leader who had made Britain relevant again. Something similar happened three years ago. We understood the British people's distaste for the Iraq War in 2007, we had it too. But Tony Blair was a brilliant, dashing figure. He seemed to be the most charming politician on Earth, he was the political Hugh Grant. But instead the Labour Party decided to go with Gordon Brown, who is as charming as a brick wall. Make no question about it, Tony Blair would have dominated the debate last night. I believe Labour would also be leading in the polls if Tony Blair was in charge of the party. Now, they pray for a hung parliament, don't always go to where the grass looks greener.

"I agree with Nick"

This was the line that I read was most repeated tonight. So why would Cameron and Brown, especially Brown, do that. Is it because Nick Clegg is the genius and originator of all great British political thought? If it is true I doubt the Tory and Labour leaders believe it. No, the leaders are making a calculation based off statistics. In the last election the LibDems did very well in LAB-CON marginals. Both Brown and Cameron believe that they can squeeze this vote down. The doorstep line can be "Well the LibDems can't win here, and a lot of our policies are like the LibDems." Will it work? We won't know until May 6th.

Debating the Usefulness of Debates

The leaders are preparing deeply for the first TV debate. So I think an American should give a view of how the American debates operate. First all three debates are televised on every channel that will cover it. They pool into one video feed so no matter where you tune in you are watching the same thing. This enables three different debate formats. The first is usually a stand-up debate about domestic issues. The second is a sit-down about foreign and defense (defence) policy. The third is a town hall where the candidates are asked questions by 'real people' on a mish-mash of subjects. They are hyped by the media and can have defining moments. But for the most part they are incredibly dull and change the views of very few people. In the American system they are essential because the people of America go into the polling booth and choose between the two people on that stage. I personally believe in the British system with the short election span and the fact you vote for an individual MP and not the leader there only needs to be one debate. This first debate will be exciting and informing for the British people. The other two will be uninteresting and a waste of time.

P.S. I think Brown will do better than people think. Remember he is the only one who has had to answer tough questions weekly for nearly three years.