Election Update Izzard Heckled, Clegg shameless opportunist

Famous comedian Eddie Izzard was heckled in Reading. The heckler said "they are all the same, Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. They all have blood on their hands." Good point, all supported Iraq and Afghanistan. All were involved in the expenses scandal.

Imagine the joy of having one of the countries finest comedians join you in campaigning! Eddie Izzard came to Reading, but as reported in the local parer, he was blamed for causing the Iraq War! He replied 'it wasn't me', but it was his party. That is the sort of reaction you get when campaigning for Labour.

Eddie discusses Gordon Brown calling a woman a bigot, he claims Gordon was correct, as a bigot is 'defined as someone who has stopped listening'.

I looked it up, Bigot: 'One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.' That would describe some in the Labour Party, but not Gillian Duffy, who merely asked a question that many are asking. Brown initially answered her well, and changed her mind, so not a Bigot.

Meanwhile Nick Clegg has changed his mind, a few weeks ago he said 'its not a two horse race', this week he is saying 'its a two horse race'. And what has changed between last week and this week? He is higher up in the polls.

Clegg apologised for using the “derogatory” word “nutters” to describe European allies of the Tory leader during the second leaders’ debate. He was responding to a complaint from the mental health campaigners.

I think the country will now see Clegg as shameless opportunist. He will jump on any cause that he thinks will benefit him; which leads to many contradictions. They can't be poth strong on the environment, and yet support airport expansion all over the country. They say what they think people want to hear, and when challenged, wobble. Hence the strong stance on being pro Euro. (Irony alert).

A few weeks ago the main political parties were tarred with the same brush, all smeared with the effects of expenses scandals. This meant that the smaller parties might see a gain in attention and votes.

Then along came the 'leaders' debates, and all of that appears forgotten. Millions of people are presented with a choice of the big three parties, as though this was the only choice. The SNP used legal action to try and break in to this, but lost the case. Ukip said they would do this, but didn't in the end. In the USA, where they have had this sort of debate for years, they have a presidential system, you voted for Obama or McCain. In the UK there is no such election, voters have a choice of local candidates, no one will get a choice of Brown, Cameron and Clegg, they are in separate constituencies.

There are over 300 political Parties, varying in strength in different constituencies. I am not suggesting a debate between 300 people, there wouldn't be time to answer a single question. I would suggest that the first couple of questions are on Scotland and Wales, so joining the big three are the SNP and Plaid. Then a couple of questions on the environment and the EU, when they could be joined by the Greens and Ukip. Then that audience of around 10 million would have seen a real alternative, not just the big three, which all have similar agendas.

Cameron has been pinning his hopes on scaring us about a hung parliament, when most democratic countries in the world have coalition government. Countries which often operate with coalition cabinets include: the Nordic countries, the Benelux countries, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Kosovo, Pakistan, Kenya, and India.

Similarly for those who like first past the post, the list of countries who use proportional representation is too big to mention.