I don’t like it when people don’t vote, but it’s a mistake to consider it to be the cause of ills; it’s a symptom not a cause and to criticise people who don’t vote as having no right to talk about politics is missing the point spectacularly. As is forcing people to vote, the natural policy conclusion of such a state of mind.

I actually found Adam Curtis’ “The Trap” to be a little misfiring, certainly not as good as “The Power of Nightmares” – the final part unravelled a little as he became too polemical. I’d like to see him have a second go at it and keep it to storytelling.

Finally, while it’s true that politicians rarely contribute to new waves of thinking, they have had the capability to bring forward ideas and theories into the public conscience and humanise them, apply them (think the 1945 Attlee & Bevan implementing Beveridge, or Thatcher & Joseph channelling Friedman). Blair & Brown had Giddens, but I find Giddens’ thinking to be either banal or muddled and piecemeal.

…aren’t you all glad I contributed to this discussion?

I would disagree that the values of most of the two front benches are indistinguishable. Imagine politics didn’t exist and you invited your friends Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband, James Cameron and George Osborne to dinner at the same time. It would be social suicide.

The problem, as you point out, is that no matter how different their values they are all picking from a pitiful bunch of ideas, words and even thoughts with which to conduct politics. In the micro decisions there are strong differences which matter, but beyond that – nothing.

Thing is, ideas, philosophies and new sets of principles haven’t (IMO) historically come from politicians. I’m not sure we should attack them for resorting to technocratic managerialism in the face of the intellectual wasteland that surrounds them.

Otherwise don’t get sanctimonious with those of us who believe in trying to do their best with the choices on offer. The alternative – as you say – is you end up with George Galloway!