Tom Richmond: 10 vital issues that dominated how voters made their choice

A poll where each main party has promised, out of economic necessity, swingeing spending cuts.

A genuine three-party campaign for the first time in decades.

The first time that the main party leaders have debated head to head.

And a contest where the Prime Minister effectively dismisses all those who disagree with him as "bigots".

But, as the last votes are counted – and the political spin teams talk up their leader and denigrate their opponents for one final time –

what are the wider lessons that can be drawn from the 2010 campaign?

The public's mistrust of politics has never been greater. The stench from the MPs' expenses scandal lingers like a rotting fish. Never, ever again must self-interest be put before public interest, a process that is far from being complete.

Never underestimate your opponents. Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg's surge can be largely attributed to the fact that he was under-estimated by both Gordon Brown and David Cameron. If Prime Minister's Question's was a more civilised occasion, rather than a shouting match, they would have spotted the "Clegg factor" before the first TV debate. Instead, it was Clegg – and not Cameron – who could portray himself as the telegenic "heir to Blair", even if he would never describe himself as such.

TV debates are here to stay. Like them or not, they helped revive the public's interest in politics – despite too much attention being placed on the respective colour of the leaders' ties. However, their timing needs reviewing. Was it right that the last and, potentially, most crucial debate – on the economy – was held after postal votes had been sent out?

Should leaders' debates be held each year? One criticism is that so much rested on these setpiece occasions that they became so all-encompassing that they prevented other campaign work from taking place. If they happened twice a year, perhaps to coincide with the Budget and the Queen's Speech, they would concentrate the minds of the party leaders – and remind them that they need to count upon the support of the British public.

End the negativity. Clegg and Cameron both prospered when they accentuated the positive – and how their vision could make a Britain better place. Brown floundered because he had nothing positive to say about Labour's agenda. His summing up in the last TV debate was shameful. By vilifying the Tories, Brown exposed his own political and economic bankruptcy. Perhaps it was fitting that he should have been photographed leaving a shopping centre last weekend with the

sign "Goodbye" emblazoned above his head.

The case for fixed-term Parliaments. How Brown must now rue not going to the country in the autumn of 2007. Yet one reason for the public's disillusionment is how decision-making has been destabilised by the uncertainty over the election's timing. Would fixed-term parliaments make a difference? It would certainly force politicians to work together – and certainly be more respectful of their opponents – if a hung Parliament prevails.

Should opinion polls be abolished? Whether it has been over the timing of the election, or the public's reaction to leaders' debate, too much emphasis is being placed on the polls. The result is a short-termist one – politicians telling voters what they want to hear and then, in all probability, doing the opposite. Take David Cameron's pre-election interview with Andrew Marr last Sunday. Candid about the likely scale of cuts, and the parallels with Greece's financial meltdown, he was still too afraid to set out how he will fill the black hole in the Tory budget plans because it might jeopardise his poll ratings. And just look at when one poll compared Nick Clegg to Winston Churchill. Clegg may have had an effective good campaign – but, sorry, he's no Churchillian figure.

Where are the big hitters? As much has been said – and written – about the leaders' wives than the likely next occupiers of the great offices of state. Forget the fashion and tittle-tattle, this has still been a policy-lite campaign – despite the innovation of the leaders' debates. Too much time has been devoted to the leaders when the public actually want to get to know prospective Ministers, and what drives them. Have you noticed how Shadow Chancellor George Osborne kept such a low profile? Equally, at a time of war, it is, frankly, deplorable that Afghanistan – and the sacrifices that continue to be made by British troops – appeared to be a taboo subject for much of the campaign.

Drop the sporting metaphors. Having begun the election by comparing the economy to Wayne Rooney's injured foot, Gordon Brown's final sporting foray saw him recall, proudly, how he "dropped the baton" as relay runner during his schooldays.

It was not an image to inspire confidence. It just confirmed, if voters needed reminding, that Brown is a clumsy figure – and that politicians exploit the power of sport for PR purposes rather than maximise its potential as a force for good.

Make sure you switch off your microphone. The defining image of this election will be Brown's unguarded remarks when he described lifelong Labour voter Gillian Duffy as a "bigoted woman" after their frank exchange on the streets of Rochdale.

It just showed how out-of-touch the Labour leader had become – and will haunt Brown until his dying day.

Frankly, it epitomised his premiership and this campaign – an election that showed the public's respect for the political lite had fallen to an all-time low. It is why winning back the electorate's trust has to be the top priority of the next government. Mrs Duffy is not a bigot. She was speaking for the nation. And, as Britain prepares for a new political beginning, it is time that her message was heard loud and clear.