SINCE I’ve made a resolution not to blog about the weather, I might as well say something about the only other issue that’s got the chattering classes all excited: the leaders’ debate.

First, a few observations.

I do hope that at last we can get rid of the permanent ticker tape on Sky News asking us to sign their bloody petition as if their whining about wanting a debate actually qualifies as news.

Nick Clegg? WTF?! If we must have a debate, it would surely have been far better to involve only the main party leaders, with a separate one for Clegg, Salmond and whoever is leading UKIP these days. As it is, we’re going to have Brown and Cameron talking about the big issues, occasionally interrupted by the Liberal leader’s sanctimonious hand-wringing and lip-quivering sermons on “trust”.

Remember the 1992 presidential debates between Bush Snr, Clinton and Ross Perot? You get the picture.

As for the SNP, of course they’ll fulfill everyone’s expectations by having a wee tantrum. But their previously successful policy of book-burning preventing an interview with John Major being broadcast nationally in 1992 won’t work this time – too many of us can get the English regions on our Sky boxes. But if a Scottish debate is to be held, I assume Alex Salmond will not be representing his party, since it’s a Westminster election and Alex won’t be a candidate. (Having just typed that sentence, I now realise that, no matter how hard I try, I cannot summon any interest at all in who represents the SNP in the debates, but I thought I’d make the point anyway.)

Barring any legal difficulties, election debates will now become part of UK general election coverage. My guess is that the response of the general public to the leaders’ performances will have less impact on the final result than will the coverage of the debate by the media, since I doubt if the TV audiences will be large enough to have much of a direct effect (and I imagine the audience numbers will drop with each successive debate).