Question Dine: election candidates served raw

This is really great, interesting to hear how the minority parties take on the big issues, and the people who do politics from the sidelines like Claire Fox, who runs the Battle of Ideas. You'll learn a lot too, like that there was a recession right at the beginning of the Roaring Twenties.

Do you really believe that people vote since they are inspired or amazed by one of the parties programms? Why the so called "white votes" are not counted and seen as the expression of " wanting to vote but not having nothing interesting enough to choose from".

We need politics which are about competing visions of the kind of society we want to live in not the degraded stuff we have now in which politics can be anything from eating habbits to health checks. Tinkering, managerialism and interference in our lives will not inspire us to vote.

Claire Fox has some interesting ideas but Saleha is right, at the moment what is there to vote for?? None of these candidates present any overwhelmingly compelling ideas that would inspire young people to get up and vote, voting apathy exists at the moment because people feel there is nothing out there that represents the publics views and there are no parties who are advocating ANYTHING even remotely like change! As for the English Democrat candidate saying it "stresses" him out living in London, as there are too many people living here, then the solution for him seems obvious: move out!! Saleha is right, people are the solution, but from what these candidates are saying it seems unlikely that the political parties will ever believe this...

Abul's comments on free speech were his political mistake and the green guy's comment on limited resources was his, and they're supposed to be the left wing of British politics today, shocking! The guy from the English Democrats was at least logical but for me it was Saleha all the way!

It is remarkable that politicians so regularly argue that they did not get the chance to say what they mean't whenever someone disagrees with them. Below is a case in point. Abul clearly repeats in his comments what he said on the programme and does not support free speech. Hiding behind the law does not help his case or improve matters. Just because the European Convention on Human Rights is against free speech doesn't make it OK, rather it shows us that is another institution that distrusts jo public, treats us with contempt and will restrict our freedoms. Abul wants a law designed to curtail what we can and can't say to be used nicely by nice people and not to be used against Islamist organisations. The law is generally not nice, made by nice people and nicely applied, it rests on the assumption we cannot sort out our own affairs and we must be regulated by unelected superior beings in wigs. If you take the litigeous road to deal with problems instead of politically arguing and campaigning for what you believe in then you are handing over your power to those who will surely bite you. Its a shame that once bitten twice shy doesn't apply.

If I were allowed to elaborate my point on the programme about freedom of speech, which I wasn't allowed to do, then I would have said that from a legal perspective [which is what my background is] freedom of speech is a qualified right.

Freedom of speech is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights as a qualified right. However, many people wrongly believe that this right is unqualified and that they could say what they want, when they want.

In response to John Fitz, the point I was making is that we are for race hate laws, however, we are against them being used in a wholesale manner to proscribe Islamist organisations that we don't like - even though on the surface they are not breaking the race hate laws.

We are against 'trial by media' of these organisations and their proscription should be based on the benefits of proscription, rather than media pressure.

I think we need to stop limiting our ideas of politics to putting an X in a box every 4 or 5 years. Thats one of the big problems and thats why people are 'apathetic', its almost becoming a pointless activity in our electoral system, and although its not a unique comment its true to say that there isn't much to choose from. So if people open up their ideas of politics to changing their own situation in life, maybe it will inspire people to get involved!

Really fascinating! I think we need a 'none of the above' of the above box which actually counts. Imagine if 50% of the voters voted none of the above and then the election had to be repeated and none of the original candidates could stand again.That is a prospect that would reinvigorate an electorate that are frankly shell shocked by the lack of inspiration on offer from all political parties.

well i'd vote for a wheelie bin before I voted for any of the big political parties

I think the problem with most young people, particularly my generation, is a lack of awareness. At school we were never taught about politics and current affairs which has created a general ignorance. As a result a lot of people have no interest in politics and don't see why they should vote. However since personally experiencing a period of unemployment and witnessing the lack of initiative demonstrated by the government it has spurred me into action. I think Claire Fox's views really pinpointed important issues!

Well, she's not standing but I'd vote for Saleha Ali - 'people are the solution not the problem' in reply to the green person - SPOT ON!, and 'so you dont really believe in freedom of speech' in reply to Abul Hussain of Respect ('I believe in freedom of speech but .. blah blah blah') - again SPOT ON!

Abul Hussain didnt appear to notice the irony of his support for laws against hate speech and his opposition to the use of these laws against Islamicist groups. WAKE UP MAN!!

Great programme!!!!!

No, we shouldn't vote as some kind of duty, that's totally empty and anti-democratic. We should vote because a party's political vision inspires us, which isn't the case with the political candidates in this debate. I WOULD vote for the lady from the Institute of Ideas, though! - she makes some excellent common sense remarks on all the issues.

Are we supposed to vote as some kind of duty? The lack of competing visions in the forthcoming elections is stark, at least we have some serious debate here.