Interesting...

Did the Daily Mail fake the results of its readers' poll so David Cameron won last night's Leaders' Debate? Fascinating stuff from refpls:journalism, science and politics.

The Leaders' Debate 2 - another 90 minutes of light entertainment

Sky News hosted the second Leader's Debate last night from Bristol's Arnolfini arts centre as measures designed to ensure British elections become little more than a US-style gladiatorial contest continue. Eschewing last week's 1980s Countdown stage set look, they apparently bought up some old bits and pieces used for televised darts matches instead. The Kraftwerk-minus-one-member-(and talent) imagery was also gone - this week, the leaders stood behind what may have been designer refrigerators.

Gordon Brown's not looking too healthy these days - going head-to-head with

Cameron and Clegg seems too much for him.

Daveyboy Cameron put on a much better show than last week and was altogether sharper and more on the ball. He wasted no time in getting the knives out for Gordon Brown when he demanded that the PM withdraw leaflets accusing the Tories of wanting to cut benefits for the elderly - Mr. Brown, who looked uncomfortable, claimed that he had not authorised leaflets making any such claim. This could well prove to be one of the biggest mistakes of his life - Cameron's claims were effortlessly backed up by various Labour MPs and pundits right after the show when they produced an assortment of those very leaflets as evidence.

Poor old Gordon! We may loathe the old curmudgeon and we might think he should never have been the Prime Minister in the first place, but we don't half feel sorry for the old sod. While Cameron had done his homework and prepared himself for the previously underestimated foe that is Nick Clegg and his oratory skills, Brown didn't really do any better than last week. He looks exhausted and as though he's beginning to melt - if his temper is truly as bad as has been claimed, we hope he loses the forthcoming Election and retires from politics for the good of his own heart's health as well as that of the nation.

Cameron also made a less successful to attack the LibDem's golden boy, accusing him of being holier-then-thou over the expenses scandal. That may be the case, but the fact remains that Clegg's party came out of that mess in much better shape than the other main parties and, during the early days when recriminations and accusations were flying about the Commons in even bigger flocks than the bullshit, the LibDems gave the impression of doing something about it while Labour and the Conservatives tried to score points.

On the same topic, neither Cameron nor Brown made much of a big deal over the recent allegations that several transfers of £750 from donors into his private bank account. Clegg has since come clean, admitting that he received a total of £20,000 in this way - political suicide in the current climate were it not for the fact that he has a full set of bank statements showing the money was used for its totally legitimate purpose - paying a member of staff. So why was so little made of this? Could it be that Labour and the Tories believe that the Liberal Democrats are, in fact, holier-than-them and knew there was no point in slinging mud where none would stick? They were more than happy to make plenty of noise about it in the run-up to last night's debate, however, perhaps hoping to tarnish Clegg's reputation after he wiped the floor with them last week.

Nick, it must be said, did not do quite so well as previously, though it's our opinion than he still put in a better effort than his rivals - had Cameron have been quite as dire as last week, Clegg may well have aced it once again. There was a brief display of showmanship when he raised a genuine laugh from the crowd by pointing out that Brown's plan to repatriate illegal immigrants is impossible if you don't know who or where those immigrants are. Brown, unusually, attempted a spot of humour too when he said that Dave and Nick's tussles reminded him of his own young sons at bathtime - Clegg retaliated by claiming "It was a good line in rehearsal," which seemed relatively unimportant until The Guardian managed to get hold of copies of overhead photographs proving that the line was in fact pre-prepared and written down on the PM's crib sheet, making Brown look more wooden than ever.

The first poll to deliver results - somewhat unsurprisingly, that organised on behalf of Tory snotrag The Sun - claimed Cameron was the winner with 36% of viewers believing he had been the star of the show, but the very next disagreed and placed Clegg in pole position once again with 33%, Cameron and Brown winning 30% apiece. More results were soon winging their way onto our screens, with the general consensus being that there was no clear winner. However, we strongly disagree with this - there was, in our eyes, a very clear winner: whichever Sky News employee came up with the quite frankly stunning animations projected onto Bristol's Arnolfini building.

Make sure you tune in for next week's show, folks - DavCam is going to be determined to be clear winner in at least one of the debates that he supported right from the start and Cleggy will be wanting to go out in style. It could well prove to be the clash of the New Labour and LibDem titans. Oh - and who knows, Gordon Brown might even bother to get out of bed for a third go.

The Leaders' Debate: a mere sideshow trifle

This was, without doubt, the worst Kraftwerk gig I've ever watched.

The circus was well and truly in town for one night only in Manchester last night, with three clowns bringing joy and light into the lives of the benighted serfs that inhabit the God-forsaken hole. David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg each performed a hilarious comedy routine with much slapstick, custard pie throwing and tipping of buckets full of brightly coloured confetti into one another's pants. The crowd went wild - or at least, they would have done, but "pre-arranged rules" and in all likelihood cattle prod-wielding security ensured they remained rooted to their seats and kept shtum. A Question Time audience would have jeered themselves hoarse.

The general consensus is that the boy Clegg, who looked about 20, did rather well for himself - he looked calm and relaxed and even cracked a semi-joke or two at the others expense. Cameron was caught by surprise on a number of occasions by presenter Alastair Stewart, who wasn't taking shit from anyone, when he was cut off mid-flow and left gawping "but...but..." like a semi-sentient goldfish. Brown, bless his little tartan socks, tried his best and forced a smile or two, but as is his downfall he came across as dour, moody and tired. Opinion polls today seem to agree Cleggy delivered - the LibDems are showing a marked upturn, while Labour and the Tories dive downwards. It'd not enough to win them the election, but if Nick can keep it up they may well be in for their best result in decades.

The leaders discussed a variety of issues, including Acid Rabbi favourites immigration (none of them taking quite as liberal a position as we would - ie; let people go where they want when they want - but it's apparent each party has some reasonably solid ideas. Sadly all ideas based on dealing with widespread public worries by limiting immigration rather than educating them so they understand immigration is more likely to solve than cause problems, but there you have it. Clegg pulled a real trick on this one by being the only participant to actually say something nice about immigrants, a fact that will do him no end of favours since the majority of British people are not racist) and MP's expenses, which took the form of the usual "we're really, really sorry" with a noticeable lisp on the 's' in sorry which is hissed out by their devious, forked tongues. This one was always going to play well for Clegg as the LibDems came out of the expenses scandal in far better shape than the other main parties. Cameron and Brown made all the usual noises but it was evident that the stage, which looked rather like it had been cobbled together from 1988-vintage Countdown sets (and thinking of it, doesn't Alastair Stewart look a little like a cadaverous Richard Whiteley?) had become a very uncomfortable place.

The economy took up a fair chunk of the show and Mrs. Rabbi, who is a woman and thus has a keen eye for details such as this, noted that the cost of Parliament for 2010 could have been reduced dramatically had the three amigos chosen to wear something out of their wardrobes or an off-the-peg BHS suit rather than each spending something probably not far off the average British family's monthly income on some admittedly fine-lookin' threads. Clegg - easily the cutest of the three, says Mrs. Rabbi - wore a smooth charcoal grey number with a LibDem yellow tie and he wore it well, looking relaxed, comfortable and even cool. Cameron, as ever, looked like a boiled potato in a regulation dark blue Tory suit with blue tie but having been born in Savile Row's finest it was a boiled potato dressed with the very finest mayonnaise. His shoes looked like they probably worth as much as a healthy pair of kidneys on the black market (and who knows? Being a Tory, they may well have been made of kidneys ripped from the lithe young body of a working class teenager). Brown went for dour-yet-dependable black. That he - a man who is not in the very best of shape - looked notably prime ministerial is token of his tailor's admirable skills. He wore the Red Tie of Socialism, which he possibly sees as a suitable replacement for flying the Red Flag that his predecessor ripped up and burnt back in 1997. Sadly, he was unable to sound prime ministerial and came across as slightly confused, sad and wishing he was elsewhere.

That got us thinking - what did the gig actually achieve, especially when so many important matters - technology, the Middle East and so on - were not mentioned? Well: Clegg persuaded a few undecideds who vote according to how good a candidate looks on the telly that they should go with him and Cameron and Brown convinced a few others that doing so might not be a bad idea. That was about it, really. But it's not even nearly enough to make a LibDem government a likely prospect - while the Daily Telegraph claims that if the General Election was held today, the LibDems would win 159 seats (Labour would win 165, the Tories 294), Clegg's inability to throw himself headlong into political scraps will ensure last night's performance is forgotten by all but a few pundits and bloggers by the 6th of May so if anything it just makes a hung parliament look more probable. Secondly, what did it cost? ITV, perhaps because they took the unusual decision not to screen any adverts for the full 90 minutes, spent little - the set probably cost about a fiver and whereas Stewart is doubtless not on minimum wage whatever they paid him will be seen as a bargain in return for 9.8 million viewers (plus however much other channels pay them for the right to show the debate) - but whatever they spent will have been covered by their own budget, which is made up of what advertisers pay them. How much, we wonder, did it cost us, the tax-payers?

It was obvious that in addition to their posh suits and shiny shoes, each leader had been subject to a whole host of image consultants, stylists and who knows what else over the last few weeks. Their voices may have faltered as they argued around tricky points, but visually all three men were stunning. Clegg, who had been jotting down notes throughout, made a great show of reciting the names of those who had asked questions (including Joel, the rabbi's son who drove Nick Griffin into a corner during his notorious Question Time appearance and wouldn't let him out again, a lad who will probably be presenting programmes of this type in a few years' time) and thanking them - perhaps it was insincere and a calculated attempt to make him look more human, but coming at the end of 90 minutes in which he had shown himself to have infinitely better manners than his rivals it was PR gold and charmed the crowd. Brown, perhaps realising suddenly that this was his last chance to show he too cares about the proles, made a last ditch effort and shook hands with a few members of the audience. Cameron stood staring ahead, as if trying to work out whether or not his performance was sufficiently poor to put his party behind Labour in the polls - it wasn't, though we're not going to pretend you didn't do a piss-poor job last night, posh boy.

Many bloggers are calling the debate a gladiatorial contest but we disagree. While entertaining, it was nothing more than an mildly amusing circus routine. Some people will have decided who to vote for last night, but let's credit the public with some intellect - most people don't vote according to how nice Clegg, Cameron or Brown's suit looks, how shiny their shoes are or how accomplished a performer on stage they are (though I have to admit, had one of them showed up in paratrooper boots, combat trousers and a Crass t-shirt they'd have earned a lifetime's party membership fees from me). Even in these days of gym-joining narcissism, botox and celebrity-worship, the majority of the electorate vote for the candidate representing the party that supports the views they share and the causes they believe in. The Liberal Democrats scored some valuable points last night, the Conservatives lost some and Labour flogged a dead horse but all three demonstrated their belief that the public are a bit thick with loyalties that can be bought for a few shiny trinkets.