So, tomorrow the UK population goes to the polls to try and decide who we'd like to have running the country for the next few years.
And it's a bit of a tough one this time round. Looks like we're going to have to choose from the best of a mediocre (at best) bunch.
The former outsider, Nick Clegg, has found himself in the running because of the televised debates. A great idea but sadly a reflection of our X-factor obsessed society that many people are considering voting Lib-Dem because of Nick's performance on the show without fully understanding what his party's policies really are. I do know about the Lib-Dem policies and this puts me off voting for them.
Gordon Brown has been characterised as the guy who brought us recession, even though he inherited a very favourable economic climate when he took office as Chancellor in 1997. He tried claiming that he managed the economy well, but even before the recession hit he was borrowing at record levels to fund the so-called 'investment' in public services. Sadly though, these billions in extra government debt haven't brought about a commensurate improvement in the way Government services are provided. However, this much is certain, we now have a million more people on the public payroll and higher unemployment than Margaret Thatcher ever had.
Highly unlikely that they'll get my vote because there isn't an economist on the planet that would see the sense in borrowing and spending your way out recession caused by debt - the numbers don't add up and never will.
And so to David Cameron. The Eton boy who wants to be to PM has done a reasonable job of keeping his party mostly free from the headline MP expenses scandal. But I still find him to be a little unconvincing at times. I like the guy but he hasn't assured me that his party will properly tackle the budget deficit without causing major disruption to economic growth. Unfortunately for him (and us) if he wins the election he'll have such a poisoned chalice left to him by Brown's mis-management that he's going to struggle to come up smelling of roses no matter what course of action he takes for reducing the deficit.
An interesting point made by a friend of mine is that a hung parliament might be good for us because it'll stop any party trying to do anything silly. It might even bring a period of stability which would allow the private-sector economy to do it's job and bring us towards recovery.
And then there's tactical voting to take into account: Peter Soulsby (Lab) is my current MP with a reasonable majority of 9%. He does a good job and is (for the most part) a very good MP.
His predecessor, Parmjit Gill Singh (Lib-Dem) is standing again but was absolutely useless as an MP last time round.
Ross Grant (Con) doesn't really stand much chance, unfortunately. He'd need a swing of about 20% in his direction to even come close and, even though there will be a big swing away from Labour, I can't see enough of it going his way.
So I'm stuck.
I like Peter Soulsby but don't want to give Gordon the Moron 5 more years to bugger up the country even further. I don't want Parmjit Gill Singh because he's useless. And the party I'd normally vote for could be a wasted vote.