Like millions, I have been following the televised leaders debates. And we've also had our local debates as well - the Broughton Spurtle (local community newssheet) held theirs on Wednesday - and the 200+ turnout showed clearly that people are interested in this election.
I beginning to wonder, however, if the format of the televised debates allows issues to be really probed in depth? To take one issue (and I am choosing this as it is one where I actually disagree with my party's line), namely that of renewing Trident, which of course I and many other Labour MPs voted against in the last Parliament. The LibDem line of course is that they are 'against a like-for-like replacement for Trident' - but that is entirely woolly - does that mean they are in favour of another system (their official line seems to be yes), and if so what type, how much would it cost? Their policy would seem to allow them to spend even more if they wanted. Does it mean nuclear missiles launched from planes - a shared nuclear missile system with the French - land or sea based cruise missiles - all of these options have been suggested as 'cheaper' versions of the nuclear bomb.
Or are they against replacing it entirely, which certainly seems to be the impression some of their candidates are giving?
These are important questions, but obviously not the ones which either David Cameron or Gordon Brown are going to focus on seeing as they both support Trident replacement.
Maybe the final debates should allow for some pointed questions from the TV 'chair' - I'm not always the greatest fan of Jeremy Paxman's style, but perhaps he should be let loose for the last one!?