[Closed] Election Campaign

Wonder what Axelrod is doing for his £300,000 in the US ?

Why isn't he over here. Perhaps it's part of his [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/key-election-adviser-to-ed-miliband-pays-no-uk-tax-10181271.html ]tax planning strategy.[/url]

If keeping calm under pressure is a leadership requirement, Sten 10, then.

Well if so it was certainly a leadership requirement that Iain Duncan Smith possessed in abundance, it's hard to imagine him ever losing it.

[img] [/img]

Sadly for Iain Duncan Smith the British people felt that despite his calm and relaxed manner he lacked leadership qualities.

The famous Dennis Healey quote "like being savaged by a dead sheep" comes to mind.

In the face of the tories peddling brazen lies, misinformation, and basically re-writing history, I've often thought the labour party should be taking a leaf out of their book.

Why ? If you believe in your own arguments there is no need at all to lie, misinform, and re-write history.

Yes ernie, but I wasn't talking about IDS.

[img] [/img]

There was also:

First time I've seen Marr in "attack dog" mode being bested. Cameron kept calm, kept his head and controlled the interview to his advantage. Marr was made to look like a shouty nitwit

... but perhaps you missed that bit in your rush to divert the focus of my comment.

Yes ernie, but I wasn't talking about IDS.

No you weren't, it's me who decided to talk about Ian Duncan Smith.

I gave him as an example of someone who can keep exceptionally calm under pressure, more so than Cameron I would say, but yet clearly failed to impress the British public this made up for his lack of leadership qualities.

I don't think that we've yet established that only people you want to talk about can be discussed on here Woppit.

If you believe in your own arguments there is no need at all to lie, misinform, and re-write history.

If you keep the policies true, without watering them down, then it follows that they wouldn't need to lie or misinform as they'd actually believe in them, this is possibly why the labour party come across as insincere. Still doesn't prevent them from throwing some sh*t the other way though. The tories will not think twice about misrepresenting labour's policies or the effects of past policies so labour shouldn't either. Despite my dislike of negative campaigning, I do think sometimes that the labour party are just too nice.

I do think sometimes that the labour party are just too nice.

I think you might be confusing "nice" with cowardice and lacking conviction 🙂

.

The tories will not think twice about misrepresenting labour's policies or the effects of past policies

The way to counter that is with the truth, and exposing Tory myths, such as that they are the party of low taxation, low government spending, law and order, high growth, budget surpluses, anti-recession, etc.

It reminds me of the Mike Yardwood joke in which Harold Wilson says to Ted Heath, "Stop telling lies about Labour and we'll stop telling the truth about the Tories!".

I don't think that we've yet established that only people you want to talk about can be discussed on here Woppit.

Of course, ernie. Absolutely no connection between my comment and your following response. How silly of me.

There was a direct connection between your comment and my response. I wanted to mention Ian Duncan Smith, so I did. HTH

SNP manifesto launch again making the Labour party look meek in the extreme, basically we promise not the bully them in a coalition.

The problem the Labour party has in that the confrontational style of the 1970's and 80's is what consigned them to all those years in opposition and a trip to the IMF for a bailout.

Ernie on the taxation/borrowing points it's a case of the Labour being a party of higher taxation and higher borrowing vs the Tories not the absolute levels. Labour cannot possibly win an argument which says they will reduce taxes or borrowing as quite rightly no one believes that, it goes against everything they are saying.

.....not the absolute levels.

Is that a fancy way of you admitting that the Tories tax and spend at least as much as Labour and sometimes even more ?

I agree that it's difficult for Labour to win arguments as long as enduring Tory myths about Labour's tax and spending persist. And the other myth which you've brought up that a Tory government would never have gone to the IMF.

No, just that tax rises were necessary to address the deficit. It was not possible with spending cuts alone. Any Labour government in recent times is going to spend more and tax more than their Tory equivalent, more in rate terms but probably less overall as they will preside over economic failure. I will accept that Labour are probably going to tax non-doms less than the Tories by abolishing the status

No, just that tax rises were necessary to address the deficit.

Really ? During the 1980s the tax burden in the UK hit its highest level ever, the then Prime Mister Margret Thatcher was hugely unconcerned with clearing the deficit.

She needed the money to pay for the more than doubling of unemployment to the highest levels since the 1930s, which she had created.

For those on the political left your wish has been granted. You win.

[b]"Miliband is now most likely to be next prime minister"
[/b]
[url= https://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/miliband-is-now-most-likely-to-be-next-prime-130415590.html#ztifGP8 ]Yahoo! News back up by some experts analysis ... [/url]

Mr Debate Me x2 ("Debate me! Debate me! You and me one to one!") is going to the next PM. Well done.

Remember you have wished for a Labour govt and get one so let's see if our lives will be improved.

😯

edit: arrghhh ... was posted on the other political threads ... you lot are opening too many fronts ... 😡

Seems to me the labour party are in a bit of a fix with this SNP thing. The tories obviously think it's game-changer and as with the 'labour caused the financial crisis' fiction, the longer labour stay silent and refuse to hit it head on the more they'll be damaged. If I were them I'd be sending out an unequivocal message of no deals whatsoever with the SNP. They've already ruled out a formal coalition but they really need to rule out any informal support deals too I think and gamble on being the largest party. Probably already be too late though.

Labour can't send out the message that they will make a deal with the SNP or anyone else. If they do the Tories will jump all over it with "Labour Lies" and they are having to resort to a coalition because they don't believe they can win outright, running scared, etc.

If they keep quiet and then lose some momentum then they will have to make a deal to form a government. Which will play into the Tories hands after the election.

They can't win either way.

If I were them I'd be sending out an unequivocal message of no deals whatsoever with the SNP

Nah labour should be asking the tories to rule out coalitions with the libdems, ukip and the dup.

It is ridiculous that they have allowed the Tories to dictate conditions for a possible coalition the way they have, Ed should have laughed in Cameron's face when he came out with that one.

They are all in a muddle, and the losers?

The people they represent. Why? Because they cannot (for obvious reasons) discuss how they are going to approach the most likely outcome - a coalition.

The honest approach would be to be very clear on the red line issues and where they see the fits and the problems. But no poker players lays his cards down first.

It is ridiculous that they have allowed the Tories to dictate conditions for a possible coalition the way they have

True, but it's mainly a result of the significant possibility of labour being able to form an SNP-supported minority govt whilst not even being the largest party. That is what Sturgeon is asking Miliband to sign up to, and he should quash any such talk with an outright refusal of any deals, whether formal or not. IMO this is their best/only chance of being the largest party, and I can't see any scenario where they could govern if they're not.

Labour wont win a majority unless the SNP withdraws and that is not going to happen. he is not going to piss off his biggest ally and then look like a liar immediately on forming a govt with them. I bet he wishes he could rule it out but clearly he cannot.

hey've already ruled out a formal coalition but they really need to rule out any informal support deals too

FWIW the default position constitutionally is Dave gets a first dibs at forming a govt - though last time the Lib dems went with who had the most seats and votes [ though this is not binding]

Nahh ... wishful thinking there as Mr Debate Me! Debate Me! is desperate to be the next PM so he will come up with so many justifications just to become PM. The temptation is too high to avoid.

Therefore, we shall have PM Debate Me! Debate Me! next.

You arsed for Labour govt you get it ... Debate Me! Debate Me! 🙄

Labour wont win a majority unless the SNP withdraws and that is not going to happen.

I'm talking about a simple majority not an overall one. I really can't see any scenario where they could govern whilst having less seats than the tories. If they're the largest party, they can probably rely on the libdems, SDLP, greens and PC to informally support them and it's inconceivable that the SNP would support a confidence vote against them. If they're smaller than the tories though, the tories will hang on, and force labour and the SNP to vote them out in a confidence vote, cue new election and the tories winning. Being the largest party really is the only chance IMO.

And chewy you need to get over your 'debate me' problem 🙂

I really can't see any scenario where they could govern whilst having less seats than the tories.

well that's the most likely outcome, surely?

dazh - Member
And chewy you need to get over your 'debate me' problem

Nope. That Debate Me! Debate Me! seem to stuck with me now ... D'oh!

I am afraid that is not very statesman like expression but there you go you are going to have a person like him to be the next PM.

Are we doomed? Let's see ...

😯

If I were them I'd be sending out an unequivocal message of no deals whatsoever with the SNP.

How are they going to stop the SNP voting for things on a case-by-case basis? Can't stop SNP MPs voting for Labour bills if they like them - or proposing amendments to get them through.

All Labour could do would be to refuse to form a government - and that'd be suicide.

well that's the most likely outcome, surely?

Maybe, although the polls are suggesting a dead-heat pretty much, there may only be a handful of seats in it, and I think this SNP thing has the potential to cost labour more than that in England.

Can't stop SNP MPs voting for Labour bills if they like them - or proposing amendments to get them through.

Of course not, but there's a vast difference between doing legislative deals in back-rooms and normal parliamentary procedure. This is my point, they could afford to refuse any formal or informal SNP support now, whilst knowing that in all likelihood the SNP wouldn't dare vote with the tories to bring down the govt.

All Labour could do would be to refuse to form a government - and that'd be suicide.

Not necessarily, they could allow the tories to form a govt, block any damaging legislation, then regroup and vote them out with the SNP at a time of their choosing when they have more support. If they do it right away then the tories will claim that it'll be some sort of putsch by a party who lost the election and their nationalist co-conspirators and they will claim the moral high ground. I really don't see any benefit in that.

bencooper - Member
How are they going to stop the SNP voting for things on a case-by-case basis? Can't stop SNP MPs voting for Labour bills if they like them - or proposing amendments to get them through.

All Labour could do would be to refuse to form a government - and that'd be suicide.

I can bet you that Labour will come up with so many justifications to change their decision later just to be in govt or as PM.

Just voting on issues can be done without a deal. A Labour or Conservative minority government can put forward bills and see how the votes go. Various articles I read back last year suggested the most likely outcome was a minority government which lasts 12-18 months before another general election. I still think that's a very likely outcome.

If Labour does a deal with the SNP they will be finished in Scotland for good as people will see that voting SNP is the same as voting Labour with the extra independence tweak.

The SNP have to rule out a coalition with the Tories as a big part of their support is ex Labour and if they did a deal their vote would go back to Labour.

dazh - Member

True, but it's mainly a result of the significant possibility of labour being able to form an SNP-supported minority govt whilst not even being the largest party. That is what Sturgeon is asking Miliband to sign up to, and he should quash any such talk with an outright refusal of any deals, whether formal or not. IMO this is their best/only chance of being the largest party, and I can't see any scenario where they could govern if they're not.

Yet you described exactly how it would be done.

Miliband would have to be stupid to rule it out; why do you think the Tories and their press are clamouring for him to do just that?

What Miliband should be doing is taking that fight back to the tories and saying "Why would we not work with another UK party? These are UK MPs representing UK citizens in the UK parliament". Sadly he's totally failed to even get in the argument. Which is really Miliband all over- always doing his best, and sometimes doing very well, but always within the rules someone else sets for him that he doesn't quite understand.

The Tories are playing this well, in the very short term- they have few allies so they're trying to take allies out of the game. In the long term, it's terrible for the country, as Lord Forsyth surprisingly pointed out. But then that's Cameron for you.

It shows up the worst of both parties sadly.

I really can't see any scenario where they could govern whilst having less seats than the tories.

Probably not if it is a large number [ 30 + perhaps less? not sure] but the critical point is who can get a working majority not who has the most seats

Not sure if the Tories cannot win a confidence vote then they cannot form a govt so I assume, constitutionally, this would not mean labour got a chance

well that's the most likely outcome, surely?

If Labour does a deal with the SNP they will be finished in Scotland for good as people will see that voting SNP is the same as voting Labour with the extra independence tweak.

Political expediency?

Not sure if the Tories cannot win a confidence vote then they cannot form a govt so I assume, constitutionally, this would not mean labour got a chance

Well as I understand it, and I may be wrong, the tories could form a govt, then a confidence vote would have to be tabled by labour. If/when the govt loses, then it has to resign and a new election will be called. Labour won't automatically just get a chance to form the next govt, they'll have to get a new mandate in an election, and this will be far more difficult second time round. I think this is probably the tories strategy, which is why labour need to nip the SNP problem in the bud and go all out for winning more seats than the tories. If they do that, they can form the govt with little chance of the tories bringing them down.

I worded my bit wrong[ not means should be be mean before labour] but if the tories cannot get a confidence vote through then you wont get to form a govt and the chance passes ,without the vote, to Labour.

If what you say is true then every losing party [ in power] could not pass a confidence test so everytime they lost , rather than the other side forming a govt, a new election was held. Clearly this did not happen
The only difference this time is the opposition requires more than one party to form the govt

result for the tories, theyve finally been able to find an angle of attack on milliband that sort of sticks

dont think its good for long term Scotland/UK union though as using fear of an evil scottish woman somehow ruining the country as pre-election point scoring is just going to alienate scots and further

Anyone see the car crash interview with the Labour deputy health bloke today on the Brillo show ? 😯

Cringeworthy, I was glad when the feed mysteriously stopped 🙂

Which is really Miliband all over- always doing his best, and sometimes doing very well, but always within the rules someone else sets for him that he doesn't quite understand.

Nail Head

The Tories may play the tactical game very well as demonstrated by the way they are dictating the narrative around Labour and coalitions - despite the very obvious contradiction that they are only in power due to a coalition and will need to form another one to remain in power. That contradiction should really be an open goal for the opposition.

Thing is we are only here because of two Tory own goals. So their long term election strategy is no better than Labour's

They torpedoed any meaningful electoral reform, denying their coalition "partners" anything but AV which they then campaigned against. PR or AV would both have put the Tories in a better position to form a right leaning coalition.

If they hadn't as enthusiastically harpooned electoral reform then the Lib Dems would have voted with them on boundary changes which would have also helped them out of their current predicament.

If what you say is true then every losing party [ in power] could not pass a confidence test so everytime they lost , rather than the other side forming a govt, a new election was held.

Yes that makes sense, in practice they won't try to form a govt if they can't win a confidence motion, but in this special case the tories could claim the alternative will be illegitimate and hang on for dear life forcing a confidence vote. I guess this just shows the stupidity of not having a written constitution. This stuff shouldn't even be open to interpretation. Even aside from this, I really don't see how labour trying to form a govt whilst being the smaller party is a good thing for them.

It's all pretty weird. Like, John Major says the SNP could blackmail Labour, apparently forgetting he was dependent on Ulster Unionist votes to stay in power. In the midst of the bloomin peace process too. (and never seemed to mind having their votes decide issues that didn't affect northern ireland, for some reason, though apparently it's a constitutional crisis if that happens with Scotland).

And the current forecast doesn't have the Tories able to form a government alone, either- so all this "blackmail" "in their pocket" chat applies every bit as much to them as to Labour. And has done for the last 5 years.

I think everyone is looking into the wrong data, the key to the election is still how many seats swap between the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem in England

Last election numbers below where its 326 need for a win.

Tories 307
Labour 258
Lib Dem 57
SNP 6

Lets say Lib Dem win nothing in Scotland then that's -11 so Scotland doesn't alter the result if the England vote held up. Big IF that, but how much will it change?

Also what's the feel on Tory seats going Labour or vice versa?

allthepies - Member

Anyone see the car crash interview with the Labour deputy health bloke today on the Brillo show ?

Cringeworthy, I was glad when the feed mysteriously stopped

OMG! OMG! (in teenage girly high pitch volume chaz style)

Talking about someone who is so clueless or refuse to answer questions yet want to be in power! Crikey! You lot are doomed! Dooomed! For a large party like Labour that cannot explain details this is going to be a rough ride when they are in govt.

Brace yourself! Brace yourself! We are heading into the blackhole ... 😆

the key to the election is still how many seats swap between the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem in England

To argue that wont affect the overall outcome is just wrong.

The tories could lose more and still have more MPS in total than Labour as they just need to lose less to labour than they lose to the SNP[ ish I accept they start with more anyway]

Also what's the feel on Tory seats going Labour or vice versa?

dunno what the national picture is, but weve just moved house , old constituency brentford and iselworth and new one, milton keynes south are both predicted to go from blue to red

Also what's the feel on Tory seats going Labour or vice versa?

I'd be surprised if the tories gain many from labour. Up here in the north I think the best they can hope for is to hold. As JY says though, the bigger question is how many labour lose to the SNP.

I see [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/grant-shapps-accused-of-editing-wikipedia-pages-of-tory-rivals ]Grant Shapps/Michael Green is in the news again[/url]. This time supposedly editing the wikipedia pages of himself and cabinet colleagues in a sixth form project style attempt to further his career. You couldn't make it up really 😀

Shapps really is an odd one!

Grant Shapps must have some amazing dirt on someone, how else do you explain his continued presence in the Tory party upper echelons?

you are ignoring the fact labour are about to lose 40 ish [ conservative guess] in Scotland

Lets see some real numbers shall we; Labour currently have 41 seats in Scotland (total scottish seats are only 59), and not ever single one will go SNP. A realistic guess is SNP ending up with between 20-30 IMO.

SNP card is being overplayed, the election will be won and lost in England. But it suits the SNP and Tories in very different ways to talk up the SNP chances.

Interesting election forecast site.

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Lets see some real numbers shall we; Labour currently have 41 seats in Scotland (total scottish seats are only 59), and not ever single one will go SNP. A realistic guess is SNP ending up with between 20-30 IMO.

20-30 Seat for the SNP?

You are Jim Murphy and I claim my five Scottish quid

Current polling is 54 seats for the SNP

On May the 8th I think this will be the likely result

[b]Scottish Seats General Election Prediction:[/b]
Conservative 1
Liberal Democrat 2
Labour 11
SNP 45

I'd bet a whole Scottish pound note that my guess will be closer than yours

Don't know about you lot but I am taking a day off to watch the election. I am going to have Fish & Chips or local burger with few bottle of beers in preparation of the election result.

Should be fun ... 😆

[i]Should be fun ... :lol:[/i]

FUN!.....FUN you say??? 🙁

Don't know about you lot but I am taking a day off to watch the election.

I usually stay up long enough til there's some confidence in the result. about 3am usually. Might need an all-nighter this time though so dunno what I'll do. Taking a day off isn't an option as I refuse to lose a day's holiday for something so pointless.

Rockape63 - Member

Should be fun ...

FUN!.....FUN you say???

Yes. Fun. I mean how much worst can you get or shall I say how hard can it be?

dazh - Member
I usually stay up long enough til there's some confidence in the result. about 3am usually. Might need an all-nighter this time though so dunno what I'll do. Taking a day off isn't an option as I refuse to lose a day's holiday for something so pointless.

I think you might need to stay up until 4pm to have some clear idea of the next person in power ... 😆

I don't buy this website> http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/
/p>

They've used some funny analysis to come up with virtually a total SNP Scotland, as they've used the 2011 Scotland Parliament vote as a guide, but
(1) the constituencies don't map properly and
(2) people in general elections tend to vote more conservatively and favour the main parties.
(3) Not all the constituencies were polled as part of their analysis so they are just guessing with those.

dragon - Member

SNP card is being overplayed, the election will be won and lost in England

More precisely, the election will probably be lost in England. Then the losers will get to argue over who forms a government and that part may well be won in Scotland.

the SNP card is defo being overplayed , its the only effective stick the torys have found to beat milliband with

I see the shappster has taken the only route he could and threatened to sue everyone repeating these terrible smears about him,

It has been a few years since we have seen a high ranking Tory sue for libel and end up doing a stretch as an outcome of this.

its the only effective stick the torys have found to beat milliband with

And a very easy one for labour to neutralise by removing the ambiguity around any informal deals. At least it would have been a week ago. Now it would look like they're backtracking. Is it just me though or have things gone off the boil? Even the guardian has relegated the election coverage down the front page on their website. Maybe everyone's just bored?

richmtb - Member
SNP 45

Bored and depressed. At a difficult time, we will have a messy coalition promising fluff but needing to act more decisively that the Tories (especially if growth stalls).

I see Cleggy going for the public sector vote this morning with (unconditional?) pay rises. Great idea Nick.....

How did Schapps get his job - not only does he look like and adolescent but he acts like one too, relying on stat-fests

Stephens take on the anti SNP tactics in today's FT is a good read.

I was just thinking it's weird how obsessed this election seems to have become with ruling things out. Everyone's supposed to rule out all their future options so that if they ever do get into power they won't be able to do anything. Miliband refuses to rule out breathing after the election! Then suddenly a wild hashtag appears...

https://twitter.com/hashtag/NotRuledOutByTheSNP?src=hash

dazh - Member

And a very easy one for labour to neutralise by removing the ambiguity around any informal deals.

If by "neutralise" you mean "capitulate on and give their opponents exactly what they want" then yes.

whats the gist THM?

It does seem counterproductive in the long run, alienating scots and threatening the union, im not even sure what threat the evil SNP pose to the country were they in coalition
its all just a bit of below the belt, slightly sexist negative campaigning and seems to have fall to do with policy

I can see the appeal to lynton crosby though as it does have labour flapping around too scared to answer and has slowed the public perception of milliband's transformation from plasticene joke to potential statesman

its all just a bit of below the belt, slightly sexist negative campaigning and seems to have fall to do with policy

The Tories attacking the SNP works for the SNP as much as the Tories. Labour need to come up with an answer, maybe Shapps is a dead cat.

Shapps can't be hung out to dry until after the election. It may even be in the rules, purdah or whatever.

To me the photo of the three women leaders in a hug, with Ed looking like a spare part, was the beginning of the end for him.

Is it just me though or have things gone off the boil?

Yep, I think everyone is fed up with the general bullsh*t from all parties. I'm not sure all these TV debates are helping, it all seems excessive and the viewing figures are falling fast, was around 4 Million for the last one, down from over 7 Million initially.

Don't know about you lot but I am taking a day off to watch the election. I am going to have Fish & Chips or local burger with few bottle of beers in preparation of the election result.

Sounds a good day. I will do the same. Not interested in big sporting events; but this - I'm in.

[url= http://http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/general-election-2015-the-idea-that-one-party-can-represent-all-that-we-believe-in-just-doesnt-apply-any-more-10193013.html ]Armando Iannucci tells it properly.[/url]

To me the photo of the three women leaders in a hug, with Ed looking like a spare part, was the beginning of the end for him.

really? i thought his approval ratings had been rising since

I think his charisma level is static though.

That election forecast site is interesting, it gives a range and covers accuracy issues. I've not seen that elsewhere, meaning MSM.

I think his charisma level is static though.

Ah, but I'm guessing from your username that you're not a teenage girl?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/the-milifandom#.mhv1pnmzQ

Blimey! "He can cut my deficit..." 😯

If by "neutralise" you mean "capitulate on and give their opponents exactly what they want" then yes.

Not sure I agree with that. The tories are feeding off the uncertainty of a potential labour-SNP informal support arrangement. Labour, in typical dithering fashion are trying to hedge their bets by ruling out a formal coalition but deflecting an answer on anything informal, when really they could afford to be bold and rule out any form of informal deal with the SNP in the full knowledge that the SNP would never vote with the tories, and deny the tories the opportunity of accusing the labour party of arranging back room deals with the SNP. That's not capitulation, it's just sensible strategy. Like I said though it's probably too late for that now as they'd be accused of backtracking and the tories would claim a victory, so in that sense you're probably right.

@Northwind, agreed the standard press question this election seems to be "will you rule out". I suppose the Clegg idiocy of describing AV as a grubby compromise and making that commitment not to raise tuition fees means every journalist is trying to replicate such pledges.

It is interesting how so much debate had been about how much UKIP would hurt the Tories when the reality is likely to be how much the SNP will hurt Labour. That is going to be one of the key elements of this election.

I still believe the pollsters will be proven to be quite misleading, especially in English seats. I also think the SNP will do less well than polls suggest but still do a lot of damage to Labour, 35-40 seats ?

It is interesting how so much debate had been about how much UKIP would hurt the Tories when the reality is likely to be how much the SNP will hurt Labour. That is going to be one of the key elements of this election.

I think that UKIP will hurt Labour - by their voters flooding back to the Conservatives when it comes to finally not be a 'protest' vote and it's for real with the thought of Labour being the 'alternative'.

teamhurtmore - Member

I see Cleggy going for the public sector vote this morning with (unconditional?) pay rises. Great idea Nick.....

[i][b]Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, was critical of the announcement. He said: “The Lib Dems have spent five years with the Tories cutting the pay, pensions and jobs of public servants, so this Damascene conversion on the eve of electoral humiliation will be seen for what it is.”[/b][/i]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/22/lib-dems-would-end-public-sector-pay-cuts-nick-clegg ]Nick Clegg vows to end public sector pay cuts[/url]

I think what Nick Clegg has offered is worth about as much as a LibDem pledge.

And what "conditions" would like to see attached to no pay cuts THM ?

In contrast of course the Tories have said that they can't guarantee no pay cuts in the NHS (rises in line with inflation) a much better better policy eh THM ? Great for staff morale, great for attracting people into health care vocations, great for families to plan their future budgets and financial commitments, great to see ordinary working people pay the price for the failures of those with power and money who screwed the economy through their unregulated greed, eh THM ?

dazh - Member

Not sure I agree with that. The tories are feeding off the uncertainty of a potential labour-SNP informal support arrangement. Labour, in typical dithering fashion are trying to hedge their bets by ruling out a formal coalition but deflecting an answer on anything informal, when really they could afford to be bold and rule out any form of informal deal with the SNP

The Tories gain far more by having Miliband rule out working with the SNP; it removes the biggest advantage he has at a stroke and basically levels the playing fields between the two parties. At the moment they're making some capital from it but it's penny ante stuff.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, was critical of the announcement. He said: “The Lib Dems have spent five years with the Tories cutting the pay, pensions and jobs of public servants, so this Damascene conversion on the eve of electoral humiliation will be seen for what it is.”

Come on.. it was clear what happened.

Clegg had to decide on power to get some stuff done, vs principles and getting nothing done. A difficult choice.

He still has to put forward policies though, but everyone (should) know that all bets are off if there's a coalition negotiation. Painting him as weak and unprincipled isn't fair and ignores the practicalities of the situation. And every political situation.. all you end up doing is complaining bitterly your whole life.

Miliband only path to power involves the SNP

He wont rule it out as he will have to have some form of an accord with them post election in order to be PM

They will use this to beat him before and after

Avoiding a clegg pledge moment is the end game here.

Painting him as weak and unprincipled isn't fair and ignores the practicalities of the situation.

In that case we can expect a huge surge in LibDem support in next month's general election compared to 5 years ago. All those millions of voters who voted LibDem with the specific aim of defeating the Tories will be overjoyed by Clegg's strong and principled stand. They will simply ignore what Clegg and the LibDems have done for the last 5 years and judge him on what he now promises.

How many extra seats do you expect those strong and principled LibDems to win molegrips ?

I'm with molgrips, the Lib Dems only had 50 odd seats, they were always going to have to make big compromises.

Interesting for all the talk of Clegg at the last election they lost 5 seats, so I'd expect the general trend to continue.

😆 @ ernie

there are big compromises and there is a complete reversal of what you promised to do.

Painting him as weak and unprincipled isn't fair

he gave a pledge and a campaign about broken promises and they immediately broke their pledge and promises once in power

FWIW i tend to agree they did achieve a lot after this - raising tax threshold, child premiums and stopping the tories from being complete ****s
However these successes cannot compensate for that complete and utter capitulation of principle.
I expect him losing his seat to be the Portillo moment of this election

Miliband only path to power involves the SNP

I'm not sure that's true. If Labour come out as the biggest party, they'll have the right to form a minority govt. They can do this without any formal or informal agreement from the SNP in full knowledge that the SNP will never vote with the tories against them. In that way they can govern and be confident of winning a confidence vote without even talking to them.

Interesting for all the talk of Clegg at the last election they lost 5 seats, so I'd expect the general trend to continue.

At the last general election the LibDem vote increased by 1% compared to the previous general election, you expect this trend to continue on May 7 ?

I think you might be in a minority there dragon. Most people expect the LibDems to lose up to two thirds of their votes next month, and they will be extremely lucky if they only manage to lose half their votes.