I'm really not sure if there's any appetite for a Tory government, and if they did call an election I think enough people would be genuinely angry that they'd shafted the LibDems so openly that there would be enough of a backlash to ensure that at the very least we ended up at square one (ish).

For the LibDems I fear that their standing would only be marginally higher if tehy'd entered into coalition with Labour. Coalition was always going to be the kiss of death for them because any successes/popular policies would be associated with the senior partner while there are, as noted above, subtle ways to blame the junior partner for the nasty stuff.

As a party it would have been better for them to hold the balance of power. As a nation I'm not sure that would have done the trick in relation to the markets etc, and it would probably have broken down even more quickly because the LibDems could show dissent publicly.

Until there is a clear leader in the polls I can't see the point in an election.

The next election will be on 7th May 2015 - I genuinely believe the Coalition will last that long, naturally with some bumps in the road on the way. The LDs have little interest in an early GE, since they would be voting like Turkeys for Christmas - they have to be in it for the long haul, to have some positives to show from being in Government. The bulk of the Conservative Party will grin and bear things for a few years, because there is no viable alternative on offer. Some on the left of the LDs in Parliament and some on the right of the Conservative Party in Parliament may peel away as time goes on, but I expect the Coalition to command a healthy enough majority in Parliament throughout the term.

I have my criticisms of the Coalition, but I genuinely believe it was the least worst alternative on offer following the last election result and I also believe it is governing in the genuine national interest.

I'm really not sure if there's any appetite for a Tory government, and if they did call an election I think enough people would be genuinely angry that they'd shafted the LibDems so openly that there would be enough of a backlash to ensure that at the very least we ended up at square one (ish).

For the LibDems I fear that their standing would only be marginally higher if tehy'd entered into coalition with Labour. Coalition was always going to be the kiss of death for them because any successes/popular policies would be associated with the senior partner while there are, as noted above, subtle ways to blame the junior partner for the nasty stuff.

As a party it would have been better for them to hold the balance of power. As a nation I'm not sure that would have done the trick in relation to the markets etc, and it would probably have broken down even more quickly because the LibDems could show dissent publicly.

Until there is a clear leader in the polls I can't see the point in an election.

The next election will be on 7th May 2015 - I genuinely believe the Coalition will last that long, naturally with some bumps in the road on the way. The LDs have little interest in an early GE, since they would be voting like Turkeys for Christmas - they have to be in it for the long haul, to have some positives to show from being in Government. The bulk of the Conservative Party will grin and bear things for a few years, because there is no viable alternative on offer. Some on the left of the LDs in Parliament and some on the right of the Conservative Party in Parliament may peel away as time goes on, but I expect the Coalition to command a healthy enough majority in Parliament throughout the term.

I have my criticisms of the Coalition, but I genuinely believe it was the least worst alternative on offer following the last election result and I also believe it is governing in the genuine national interest.

Very good.

I'd be interested to know if there was ever a time when that was true.

I'm really not sure if there's any appetite for a Tory government, and if they did call an election I think enough people would be genuinely angry that they'd shafted the LibDems so openly that there would be enough of a backlash to ensure that at the very least we ended up at square one (ish).

For the LibDems I fear that their standing would only be marginally higher if tehy'd entered into coalition with Labour. Coalition was always going to be the kiss of death for them because any successes/popular policies would be associated with the senior partner while there are, as noted above, subtle ways to blame the junior partner for the nasty stuff.

As a party it would have been better for them to hold the balance of power. As a nation I'm not sure that would have done the trick in relation to the markets etc, and it would probably have broken down even more quickly because the LibDems could show dissent publicly.

Until there is a clear leader in the polls I can't see the point in an election.

The next election will be on 7th May 2015 - I genuinely believe the Coalition will last that long, naturally with some bumps in the road on the way. The LDs have little interest in an early GE, since they would be voting like Turkeys for Christmas - they have to be in it for the long haul, to have some positives to show from being in Government. The bulk of the Conservative Party will grin and bear things for a few years, because there is no viable alternative on offer. Some on the left of the LDs in Parliament and some on the right of the Conservative Party in Parliament may peel away as time goes on, but I expect the Coalition to command a healthy enough majority in Parliament throughout the term.

I have my criticisms of the Coalition, but I genuinely believe it was the least worst alternative on offer following the last election result and I also believe it is governing in the genuine national interest.

Very good.

I'd be interested to know if there was ever a time when that was true.

Oooh you old cynic Brogdale! But to be serious, in this case the national interest largely coincides with the interests of the Coalition partners - they have to demonstrate in the coming years that they can tackle the Government deficit and put the country back on a genuine growth path. They are getting some things right and their reforms in the fields of education, social policy, pensions and welfare should bear genuine fruit (although I know you disagree with all those policies, they are borne out of genuine conviction with a view to improving life in this country).

There are areas where I disagree with Coalition policies, but in those areas I disagree from a position to the right.

I'm really not sure if there's any appetite for a Tory government, and if they did call an election I think enough people would be genuinely angry that they'd shafted the LibDems so openly that there would be enough of a backlash to ensure that at the very least we ended up at square one (ish).

For the LibDems I fear that their standing would only be marginally higher if tehy'd entered into coalition with Labour. Coalition was always going to be the kiss of death for them because any successes/popular policies would be associated with the senior partner while there are, as noted above, subtle ways to blame the junior partner for the nasty stuff.

As a party it would have been better for them to hold the balance of power. As a nation I'm not sure that would have done the trick in relation to the markets etc, and it would probably have broken down even more quickly because the LibDems could show dissent publicly.

Until there is a clear leader in the polls I can't see the point in an election.

The next election will be on 7th May 2015 - I genuinely believe the Coalition will last that long, naturally with some bumps in the road on the way. The LDs have little interest in an early GE, since they would be voting like Turkeys for Christmas - they have to be in it for the long haul, to have some positives to show from being in Government. The bulk of the Conservative Party will grin and bear things for a few years, because there is no viable alternative on offer. Some on the left of the LDs in Parliament and some on the right of the Conservative Party in Parliament may peel away as time goes on, but I expect the Coalition to command a healthy enough majority in Parliament throughout the term.

I have my criticisms of the Coalition, but I genuinely believe it was the least worst alternative on offer following the last election result and I also believe it is governing in the genuine national interest.

Very good.

I'd be interested to know if there was ever a time when that was true.

Oooh you old cynic Brogdale! But to be serious, in this case the national interest largely coincides with the interests of the Coalition partners - they have to demonstrate in the coming years that they can tackle the Government deficit and put the country back on a genuine growth path. They are getting some things right and their reforms in the fields of education, social policy, pensions and welfare should bear genuine fruit (although I know you disagree with all those policies, they are borne out of genuine conviction with a view to improving life in this country).

There are areas where I disagree with Coalition policies, but in those areas I disagree from a position to the right.

If there is any such thing as 'the national interest' I would kind of expect it to coincide with the interests of the governed, not governors.

You're quite right when you state that I disagree with the coalition policies in the areas you outline, but there was one element of their programme that I welcomed:-

"We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk."

Pity was, the only aspect of economy they understood was that of truth.

I'm really not sure if there's any appetite for a Tory government, and if they did call an election I think enough people would be genuinely angry that they'd shafted the LibDems so openly that there would be enough of a backlash to ensure that at the very least we ended up at square one (ish).

For the LibDems I fear that their standing would only be marginally higher if tehy'd entered into coalition with Labour. Coalition was always going to be the kiss of death for them because any successes/popular policies would be associated with the senior partner while there are, as noted above, subtle ways to blame the junior partner for the nasty stuff.

As a party it would have been better for them to hold the balance of power. As a nation I'm not sure that would have done the trick in relation to the markets etc, and it would probably have broken down even more quickly because the LibDems could show dissent publicly.

Until there is a clear leader in the polls I can't see the point in an election.

The next election will be on 7th May 2015 - I genuinely believe the Coalition will last that long, naturally with some bumps in the road on the way. The LDs have little interest in an early GE, since they would be voting like Turkeys for Christmas - they have to be in it for the long haul, to have some positives to show from being in Government. The bulk of the Conservative Party will grin and bear things for a few years, because there is no viable alternative on offer. Some on the left of the LDs in Parliament and some on the right of the Conservative Party in Parliament may peel away as time goes on, but I expect the Coalition to command a healthy enough majority in Parliament throughout the term.

I have my criticisms of the Coalition, but I genuinely believe it was the least worst alternative on offer following the last election result and I also believe it is governing in the genuine national interest.

Very good.

I'd be interested to know if there was ever a time when that was true.

Oooh you old cynic Brogdale! But to be serious, in this case the national interest largely coincides with the interests of the Coalition partners - they have to demonstrate in the coming years that they can tackle the Government deficit and put the country back on a genuine growth path. They are getting some things right and their reforms in the fields of education, social policy, pensions and welfare should bear genuine fruit (although I know you disagree with all those policies, they are borne out of genuine conviction with a view to improving life in this country).

There are areas where I disagree with Coalition policies, but in those areas I disagree from a position to the right.

 

If there is any such thing as 'the national interest' I would kind of expect it to coincide with the interests of the governed, not governors.

You're quite right when you state that I disagree with the coalition policies in the areas you outline, but there was one element of their programme that I welcomed:-

"We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk."

 

Pity was, the only aspect of economy they understood was that of truth.

We shall see. Of course you don't like the Coalition, since it is Tory led and you are on the far left. That is a given.

I shall judge it over the coming years in the following terms:

1. Does the Government current account deficit come down year on year, until the books are roughly in balance by the end of the 5 year term?

2. Does the UK keep its "AAA" credit rating as promised by GO?

3. Does the private sector start to grow and increase employment?

4. Do we start to see a renaissance of genuine standards of output and discipline in the maintained education sector?

5. Do we start to tackle the long term unemployed and reduce number of those who don't find work whether it is available or not?

Those have to be the top five areas to judge them by.

YouGov/news International

Con 36% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 9% Lab Lead 7% Govt approval -24

YouGov/news International

Con 36% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 9% Lab Lead 7% Govt approval -24

Hmmm..Anthony over on UK Polling gives this cautionary commentary:-

"The one caveat I would add is that don’t be too keen to look at the polls showing exciting results and ignore the dull ones. The exciting ones are no more likely to be correct – in fact, it’s pretty much the opposite! The main benefit of daily polls is that we have a constant flow of data that should allow us to look past the outliers and see the underlying picture, so while this seven point lead will get lots of attention, don’t forget that yesterday’s poll showed a Labour lead of just one point. Both would be in line with an underlying Labour lead of 3 or 4 points, which is what it showed the day before that. Alternatively, public opinion could be on the move."

Personally I'm under no illusion about the present electability of Ed & Alan, but I think that Cameron's failure to appear to be doing anything to curb the excesses of the banksters, whilst at the same time offering the masses nothing but hair-shirt to pay for their mess is taking its toll. And it will continue to do so for the foreseeable.

I would imagine Labour will romp away with Old & Sad tomorrow?

Personally I'm under no illusion about the present electability of Ed & Alan, but I think that Cameron's failure to appear to be doing anything to curb the excesses of the banksters, whilst at the same time offering the masses nothing but hair-shirt to pay for their mess is taking its toll. And it will continue to do so for the foreseeable.

I would imagine Labour will romp away with Old & Sad tomorrow?

In spite of all the bad press Miliband and Johnson have been getting as well as the ex-Labour MPs going to jail, the public are still willing to at least say they will vote Labour again. The banks, cuts and tax rises are perhaps starting to have an effect. Cameron and Gideon's message of "there is no alternative", "we're all in this together", "in the national interest" is starting to feel a bit hollow

My guess is the main driver for government unpopularity at the moment will be petrol rise's. When petrol spikes theres almost always a price to pay in terms of popularity for a goverment.

Of course then you add VAT going up. Cuts. Many people still being a debt. January credit card bills dropping on the mat. High energy prices. More bankers bonuses. Awful weathe and Flu, and its no wonder everyone is miserable and wanting to take it out on the government.

Continuous talk about interest rates needing to go up in the future is also impacting, I'd say. For a huge number of people, it's only low mortgage rates that are keeping their heads above water.

Anyone with any modicum of economic nouse can discern that the causes of inflationary pressure is not demand-pull, rather that it's the global cost of fuel & commodities. And therefore raising interest rates will do nothing to alleviate these inflationary pressures, save give a small boost to the £'s value, and create a mirage of imported fuel/commodities being slightly less expensive. But this would only be temporary, as the £'s value would fall back as the economy suffered from the hammering mortgage holders would take from higher mortgage payments.

It seems to me that those calling for an interest rate rise are either blinded by a slavish devotion to monetarist ideological dogma (ie, not living in the real world) or have the ulterior motive that an interest rate rise would financially benefit them, as they're wealthy enough not to have a mortgage, whilst having savings.

Pure monetarist economic theory is as ridiculously pointless as any other pure economic theory when applied to real life. There needs to be a mix, a balance of different economic theorem to provide the flexibility to address the multitude of different macro economic circumstances, as the causes of each are then also many and varied.

My guess is the main driver for government unpopularity at the moment will be petrol rise's. When petrol spikes theres almost always a price to pay in terms of popularity for a goverment.

Of course then you add VAT going up. Cuts. Many people still being a debt. January credit card bills dropping on the mat. High energy prices. More bankers bonuses. Awful weathe and Flu, and its no wonder everyone is miserable and wanting to take it out on the government.

That's sounds about right.

My guess is the main driver for government unpopularity at the moment will be petrol rise's. When petrol spikes theres almost always a price to pay in terms of popularity for a goverment.

Of course then you add VAT going up. Cuts. Many people still being a debt. January credit card bills dropping on the mat. High energy prices. More bankers bonuses. Awful weathe and Flu, and its no wonder everyone is miserable and wanting to take it out on the government.

I agree, but I would also add that there is disappointment with the new government in the sense that things are carrying on as they were before or even getting worse. Ordinary people don't feel the government is on their side.

They see taxes going up, food prices rising, rents rising, fuel costs rising, rail fares rising, police numbers cut, council services cut, libraries closing, fines increasing etc etc and they wonder what the point of the change of goverment was. Nothing changes - the little man gets clobbered while the super rich and bankers get richer

My guess is the main driver for government unpopularity at the moment will be petrol rise's. When petrol spikes theres almost always a price to pay in terms of popularity for a goverment.

Of course then you add VAT going up. Cuts. Many people still being a debt. January credit card bills dropping on the mat. High energy prices. More bankers bonuses. Awful weathe and Flu, and its no wonder everyone is miserable and wanting to take it out on the government.

I agree, but I would also add that there is disappointment with the new government in the sense that things are carrying on as they were before or even getting worse. Ordinary people don't feel the government is on their side.

They see taxes going up, food prices rising, rents rising, fuel costs rising, rail fares rising, police numbers cut, council services cut, libraries closing, fines increasing etc etc and they wonder what the point of the change of goverment was. Nothing changes - the little man gets clobbered while the super rich and bankers get richer

 

What did people expect? A Government cannot simply wave a magic wand to wish troubles away. Things were always going to get worse before they get better - the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement makes it so!

My guess is the main driver for government unpopularity at the moment will be petrol rise's. When petrol spikes theres almost always a price to pay in terms of popularity for a goverment.

Of course then you add VAT going up. Cuts. Many people still being a debt. January credit card bills dropping on the mat. High energy prices. More bankers bonuses. Awful weathe and Flu, and its no wonder everyone is miserable and wanting to take it out on the government.

I agree, but I would also add that there is disappointment with the new government in the sense that things are carrying on as they were before or even getting worse. Ordinary people don't feel the government is on their side.

They see taxes going up, food prices rising, rents rising, fuel costs rising, rail fares rising, police numbers cut, council services cut, libraries closing, fines increasing etc etc and they wonder what the point of the change of goverment was. Nothing changes - the little man gets clobbered while the super rich and bankers get richer

 

What did people expect? A Government cannot simply wave a magic wand to wish troubles away. Things were always going to get worse before they get better - the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement makes it so!

...for some people. 

My guess is the main driver for government unpopularity at the moment will be petrol rise's. When petrol spikes theres almost always a price to pay in terms of popularity for a goverment.

Of course then you add VAT going up. Cuts. Many people still being a debt. January credit card bills dropping on the mat. High energy prices. More bankers bonuses. Awful weathe and Flu, and its no wonder everyone is miserable and wanting to take it out on the government.

I agree, but I would also add that there is disappointment with the new government in the sense that things are carrying on as they were before or even getting worse. Ordinary people don't feel the government is on their side.

They see taxes going up, food prices rising, rents rising, fuel costs rising, rail fares rising, police numbers cut, council services cut, libraries closing, fines increasing etc etc and they wonder what the point of the change of goverment was. Nothing changes - the little man gets clobbered while the super rich and bankers get richer

 

What did people expect? A Government cannot simply wave a magic wand to wish troubles away. Things were always going to get worse before they get better - the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement makes it so!

...for some people. 

Life is like that Brogdale - always has been and always will be. That is the difference between right and left - we on the right accept that inequality is an ineluctable element of nature and set about providing opportunities for those with brawn and brain to rise above their circumstances, whilst those on the left want to achieve equality above all else, even if it means equality of misery.

My guess is the main driver for government unpopularity at the moment will be petrol rise's. When petrol spikes theres almost always a price to pay in terms of popularity for a goverment.

Of course then you add VAT going up. Cuts. Many people still being a debt. January credit card bills dropping on the mat. High energy prices. More bankers bonuses. Awful weathe and Flu, and its no wonder everyone is miserable and wanting to take it out on the government.

I agree, but I would also add that there is disappointment with the new government in the sense that things are carrying on as they were before or even getting worse. Ordinary people don't feel the government is on their side.

They see taxes going up, food prices rising, rents rising, fuel costs rising, rail fares rising, police numbers cut, council services cut, libraries closing, fines increasing etc etc and they wonder what the point of the change of goverment was. Nothing changes - the little man gets clobbered while the super rich and bankers get richer

 

What did people expect? A Government cannot simply wave a magic wand to wish troubles away. Things were always going to get worse before they get better - the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement makes it so!

...for some people. 

Life is like that Brogdale - always has been and always will be. That is the difference between right and left - we on the right accept that inequality is an ineluctable element of nature and set about providing opportunities for those with brawn and brain to rise above their circumstances, whilst those on the left want to achieve equality above all else, even if it means equality of misery.

If you are accusing me of desiring social justice, then I must plead 'guilty'. 

My guess is the main driver for government unpopularity at the moment will be petrol rise's. When petrol spikes theres almost always a price to pay in terms of popularity for a goverment.

Of course then you add VAT going up. Cuts. Many people still being a debt. January credit card bills dropping on the mat. High energy prices. More bankers bonuses. Awful weathe and Flu, and its no wonder everyone is miserable and wanting to take it out on the government.

I agree, but I would also add that there is disappointment with the new government in the sense that things are carrying on as they were before or even getting worse. Ordinary people don't feel the government is on their side.

They see taxes going up, food prices rising, rents rising, fuel costs rising, rail fares rising, police numbers cut, council services cut, libraries closing, fines increasing etc etc and they wonder what the point of the change of goverment was. Nothing changes - the little man gets clobbered while the super rich and bankers get richer

 

What did people expect? A Government cannot simply wave a magic wand to wish troubles away. Things were always going to get worse before they get better - the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement makes it so!

...for some people. 

Life is like that Brogdale - always has been and always will be. That is the difference between right and left - we on the right accept that inequality is an ineluctable element of nature and set about providing opportunities for those with brawn and brain to rise above their circumstances, whilst those on the left want to achieve equality above all else, even if it means equality of misery.

If you are accusing me of desiring social justice, then I must plead 'guilty'. 

What you call "social justice", doesn't represent the best possible outcome for most people. If some inequality results in a more vibrant and healthy economy, then I see that as a good outcome.

ComRes/IoS have got a poll asking about changing the votitng system. 36% say would vote yes to AV. 30% say they would vote no.

They also have a voting intention poll:

Con 36% Lab 40% Lib-Dem 10% Lab Lead 4%

Its very important to the Lib-Dem.

Its very important to the Lib-Dem.

Or, at least, it has been for the short while since they lost any ambition to achieve a reform to a proportional electoral system for our general elections.

"We can't afford to wait for a cross-party consensus because the Conservatives will never want to change this cosy Westminster stitch-up. People should now be given a say. A choice between the bankrupt system we have now; the timid option of Alternative Vote, a baby step in the right direction; and serious proposals for reform like Roy Jenkins' AV+ or better still the Single Transferable Vote... This is no time for his trademark timidity - Just get on with it."

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg responding to Prime Minister Gordon Brown's proposed political reforms - June 2009

So, instead of serious reform, the LDs are asking the electorate to make a choice between the present plurality system (FPTP) and a predominantly majoritarian syatem (AV). The farce/tragedy of this lost opportunity born of political necessity and self preservation is quite how little difference the majoritarian systen would make to our politics. Essex University's graphic below demonstrates this point:-

I suppose you could argue that the red outcome might have made it more possible for the LDs to have considered a pact with Brown's NL.....

I'm really not very confident just what % of the electorate are going to be interested enough in the nuanced psephological debate between plurality and majoritarianism that will underpin the intended referendum. Turnout prediction anyone?