Hat-tip for Gawker (or as I call it, the grad-school student’s Perez Hilton) here.

As someone who cares a lot about politics, but not much for our present crop of politicians, I’ve had very mixed feelings about the phoney war that is the UK‘s general election campaign. I suspect this has a lot to do with over-anticipation. After all, we’ve been waiting for this since Gordon ‘Dracula’ Brown turned himself into a cloud of black smoke and snuck through 10 Downing Street‘s keyhole in summer 2007. And like all things we’ve waited a bit or too long for – like the second Stone Roses album, or losing one’s virginity – the reality is always disappointing compared to the anticipation.

Nor can I get very excited about the prospect of head-to-head leadership debates starting tonight on the BBC. This is despite major broadcasters telling us at every opportunity that this is the biggest news story since the dinosaurs went for a lie down 65 million years ago because they were “feeling a bit poorly”. We’re meant to think they’re a victory for democracy as they happen in America. And yes, American democracy may have brought us Nixon vs. Kennedy, but it also brought us Florida 2000 and Sarah Palin.

But I wasn’t exactly able to explain why the thought of Brown, Cameron and Clegg debating their micro-policies tonight failed to light my democractic fire. Until I read this on Gawker this morning. Because there’s nothing like a disinterested outsider’s point of view for putting into words what you felt, but couldn’t articulate.

On the non-choice facing the British public it said: ‘if you were faced with a choice between three parties, headed by magnificently uncharismatic men, whose policies range from “tax the rich slightly more” to “don’t tax the rich at all,” wouldn’t you want to focus on things like, did Gordon Brown yell… at a secretary? Democracy in action!’

Thank you Gawker. I just wish your wisdom made me feel one iota better.