The debate surrounding the EU elections in the UK has been dominated by politicians from the three main parties trying to appeal to UKIP voters on issues of domestic policy - without actually discussing the biggest challenges currently facing the EU, and how your vote can change them.
The elections for the European Parliament are round the corner and those of us who will turn up to vote anywhere in Europe are faced with a multiplicity of choices. Who to vote for?
Political commentators will churn up column inches debating whether he bottled it or not, and what impact this will have on Teflon Nigel. However, this debate misses the central point about UKIP - they hold the electorate in utter contempt.
If Business Secretary Vince Cable had simply dumped up to £1bn of taxpayers' money off the top of his Department's Victoria Street HQ to flutter into the lake in St James's Park, the British public would rightly demand his immediate resignation.
The British and Danish debates about Europe have much in common - concerns about migration (read 'benefit tourism'), a sense of threatened national identity, and the division of national and EU powers (to opt in or to opt out, that is the question) - but the tone and direction differ enormously.
It's all about UKIP. It always has been. They've made a routinely uneventful and uninspiring process the political event to watch. Thanks to them, this year's European election cycle will be the most exciting, or the least boring, ever.
What's driving these changes is the Conservative's social philosophy infused with ideals of individual responsibility and ending the 'evils of dependency'. It's social malevolence, not economic pragmatism. The same can be said of the environment. Environmental campaigners are calling for government action but taking action is anathema to Conservative ideology.
Do you want my alternative, semi-serious take on round two of the Nick vs Nigel debate over Europe, Dave and Ed slagging each other off at PMQs and the prime minister's affection for Waitrose and Ocado? Here's the political week in 60 seconds.
For a British politician, being patriotic implies a deep understanding of British culture, values and national interest, and the willingness and ability to stick up for those values. Farage demonstrated a total misinterpretation of British culture and history and the values on which that culture is based.
What a couple of ding-dongs! The debates, I mean, not those taking part. LBC and the BBC allowed our two heroes to square up to each other over the course of a brace of battles. Who came out the winner?
Nigel Farage won his second television debate with Nick Clegg by an even larger margin than last week. Fully 68% said the UKIP leader ‘performed better overall’, up from 57% after the first debate, while Clegg’s rating slipped from 36% to 27%...
Moments before Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg took to the stage for their second debate on Europe, the Ukip leader made a controversial comment stating that it was "more than likely" that it was not Assad but the rebels who had used chemical gas in Syria. Surely this was an open-goal for the Deputy Prime Minister to win the debate hands down? It wasn't. Farage triumphed instead.
I switched on the radio on last Wednesday evening to hear men shouting over the top of each other. A new "Mens' Hour"? A replay of Tuesday's football? No, it was the monotone sound of our supposed democracy in action...
No one can plausibly be in favour of the rebalancing the British economy, boosting exports and supporting sustainable growth while being in favour of leaving the EU... It is inconceivable to sacrifice the success of our most successful manufacturers to satisfy knee-jerk isolationism.
We've learnt that just as understanding what constitutes a sublime piece of music is central to appreciating it anywhere, knowing what constitutes a good argument is vital to deciding whether Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage has made the better case for their position, regardless of how we personally feel about them or their politics.
Nick Clegg's timely recent intervention on the failures of the global war on drugs, and advocacy of an alternative strategy, is an important call to arms that other political leaders should heed.