Hamish Champ: 'Family Guy' or the leaders' debates on the telly? Give me Peter Griffin every time

So, were you inspired by last week's inaugural televised 'debate' involving the leaders of the three main political parties?

I can't say as I was, and turned off after a few minutes. What had been billed as an important step forward for domestic politics rapidly turned into what felt like endless re-runs of mind-numbing party political broadcasts, and I never watch those either. As exercises in style over substance go I think last week's offering ranks with some of the best.

I think my problem lies in simply not believing a word of what any​ of the three leaders had - or have - to say. So rather than watch two hours of political nonsense I opted to watch back-to-back episodes of 'Family Guy'. At least the goings-on in the Griffin household are 'funny ha-ha'.

I can't deny that decades after it became a commonplace part of the US electoral process at least we here in Blighty can now choose whether we want to watch our political heavyweights slug it out, 'gladiator-style', from the comfort of our living room or, heaven forbid, the pub.

But was it that​ earth-shattering? There has been the apparent 'Clegg effect', and some voters may indeed have been swayed by a couple of hours' worth of TV debate. But Parliament has been televised for years and I see no need to fill my evenings with yet more hot air from whichever direction. And as for the hearty handshakes all round at the end; pass the sick bag Alice.

I know political apathy is the seedbed of fascism, but I've been bored rigid of the general election for months, never mind since Gordon Brown's recent announcement that it would be held on May 6. Why can't an incumbent Prime Minister just come on the telly and say 'OK, you've waited long enough. We know it's all very dull so you can all go out and vote at the end of the week'. Job done.

It certainly seems to be asking a lot of the population to have to sit through weeks of the political equivalent of going round in circles, with nothing new being said and pants being bored off people left, right and in the middle. I'd go so far as to say that if I was one of those people currently stranded abroad due to the volcano in Iceland rendering air travel an perilous exercise I'd be thanking my lucky stars, rather than fuming, quite literally, at the airlines for my predicament. Sure, I might need to fork out money I don't have to stay somewhere until the wind changes, but it would almost be worth it to be able to not hear radio or TV commentators justifying their existence by constantly droning on and on and on about the election as if we were unaware of the issues or what was at stake.

With apathy in the air - at least in my gaff - the question of one's obligation to cast one's vote presented itself for close inspection. Talking to some friends at the weekend the subject of compulsory voting was raised. Some were in favour, even if it meant spoiling a ballot paper, should no candidates appeal. The struggle for the universal suffrage was hard-fought, so it is only right that we be required by law to exercise our vote, some argued.

But when the options are as limited as they appear to be currently it does make one long for a special box at the bottom of the list of candidates which says: 'Put your mark here if none of the above fill you with any confidence whatsoever'. That would get my vote, at least this time round…