Clegg did come across very well I thought. One of the biggest reasons was that he seemed to be able to back up his claims with a bit more substance than the other 2.

Brown came across surprisingly well, although this may just have been because I had such low expectations for him. Unfortunately, any chance Labour had of getting my vote disappeared when they forced the Mandybill through the wash-up period of parliament instead of properly debating it.

Cameron came across fairly poorly. He kept on blabbering on about "waste", but was only able to quote a couple of fairly tame examples of this. Sure canning the 7% pay rise for NHS managers is a good idea, but it's not going to magically result in billions of pounds of savings. Waste is only waste once you've identified it and explained exactly how you'd save the money. Until then, it's just an empty and substance-less word.

I was leaning in favour of Lib Dem before seeing this debate (I've explained my anti-Labour stance, and our Tory candidate lives over 50 miles away from my town for a start!). This debate has just enhanced that lean.

---

You've just reminded me about the most annoying thing about Cameron from last night.
The only real concrete example of waste that he identified was the 7% payrise for NHS managers, but then he went on to say that the only public service he was protecting was the NHS, and that he'd actually be increasing the contributions in real-term over the life of the parliament.

My life is hard, I suffer lots

It's just that proper coalitions (where members of both parties are appointed to cabinet positions) are extremely rare in westminister parliamentary systems. It's more common to have a formal agreement or accord between 2 or more parties, but where only one party actually forms the government (i.e. Labour would govern, but the LDP agrees to support them for a certain period of time - say 2 years, and Labour agrees to implement certain policies favoured by the LDP). However, even in that instance, normally, if the Cons actually won more seats overall, they should still be asked to have the first crack at governing. Then, if defeated on a confidence motion, the other two can go to the Queen and say they're willing to try governing rather than have an election.

Sadly, a proper coalition will never happen in Canada. Our opposition parties tried that back in 2008 and the governing Cons went on a PR campaign painting the move as "treasonous" and illegal, and against the will of the Canadian public, etc. And since way too many people have no fucking clue how parliamentary systems actually work (i.e. we don't actually vote in governments, we vote in MPs who then decide who will form the government), the Cons managed to rally a majority of Canadians against the idea of a coalition. They still use the term as a threat when they start to sag in the polls.

So the hung parliament means that the incumbent PM gets to build a government made from the most suitable people from each party? Why does that not already happen?

Assuming for a moment that none of the major parties are perfect (just go with me on this one), is it not better to have the one person who is most competent in their position in charge of each department? As opposed to being forced to choose one party which could have some members that you feel are weaker and would prefer someone from another party, even if you didn't agree with that parties policies in general.

Smash the establishment, etc.