To think the Tories have it in the bag.

[Littlefluffyclouds81]

I hope IABU.

To be fair, this is only based on the West Country (I do quite a lot of driving so I'm including Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset, bristol and bath). Driving around, I'd say the amount of stake boards and posters I've seen roughly represent these proportions:

Conservative: 60%
Green: 15%
UKIP: 15%
Lib dem: 8%
Labour: 2%

They have it sewn up, don't they? My mum is involved in politics and her prediction is a Tory/UKIP coalition

If that happens I'm emigrating.

[judypoovey26]

I would much rather dull but sustainable growth in both the economic and social sense rather than an ideological lurch that drags the people along kicking and screaming. Politics has very very seldom thrown up a one man 'vision' that has been anything other than divisive and dangerous.

If I recall the last major crisis occurred under the very one man vision that was Blairism. And the preceding crisis under Thatcherismuch.

Just imagine how much more hideous the age of austerity would have been under Thatcher, given how little she thought of society.

[mummymeister]

what really really worries me about a stalemate election is that the country will lurch from crisis to crisis with no real direction and then in one or two years there will be an election called early because of this. then we will see either an uber left or uber right wing party do really well as the country will be sick and tired of the middle ground where we are now. look back to the time before thatcher. dull boring politics. someone with a radical ideas gets voted in because everyone is fed up of the dullness of it all.

[CloserToFiftyThanTwenty]

Captain I agree! With all due respect to the NI MNers, if we are in the position of needing the DUP to make the numbers up to a workable government, I think we should be heading back to the polling station to try to find a better solution

[MaidOfStars]

we are moving towards coalition politics as the norm

I agree. I wonder if a referendum on other voting systems, particularly PR which delivers the ultimate "coalition" government (albeit without any agreements or pacts), might deliver a different result in ten years time?

[judypoovey26]

I have spoken upthread about my near impossible dream of a Con-Lab coalition, but as the deadlock continues I'm starting to think it isn't completely unlikely. Labour and the Tories have way more in common with each other than they do with any other party apart from the Lib Dems.

I thought Clegg acquitted himself very well last night, and I've always felt he was stuck between a rock and a hard place from the off - coming into the Coalition off the back of a massive upswing to the Lib Dems as an alternative to the main two meant he was doomed to fail without a mandate to govern himself. I like him as a person - he feels marginally less slimy than the others.

One thing is clear - and maybe it's a knock on effect of what has happened in many of the more prosperous European countries - we are moving towards coalition politics as the norm. I'm not sure it's quite the third way politics anyone had in mind twenty odd years ago though. I don't think it's a bad thing - but it would work better if the coalition was formed from two equals in terms of number. The Tories rode roughshod over most of the Lib Dems objections; it wouldn't be possible with the sheer number of Labour MPs.

[CaptainHolt]

Cons said their 'red line' was an EU referendum. Would the LibDems go along with that? I think they'd be better off with Lab.

Lab + Lib Dem + Green/Plaid still wouldn't be enough without SNP though. But it would likely be more than Con/DUP/UKIP

Am I the only one baffled by SNP being portrayed as monstrous but the Cons being shored up by UKIP and the DUP is hunky dory?

[grovel]

My (oddly pleasant) UKIP candidate told me that his only conditions for supporting the full Tory manifesto would be that the referendum be brought forward a year and that foreign aid be slashed by 50%. I don't think Cameron would find it too tough to go along with those.

[RedToothBrush]

I honestly think there is NOTHING in it for the Conservatives to go into coalition with UKIP if they only get the predicted one or two seats, EVEN if it makes their minority smaller. They would forever be held to ransom otherwise as they are too much of a wildcard.

I don't expect it to happen tbh.

[MaidOfStars]

Con-Lib would be better than Con-UKIP-Lib, for sure.

[RedToothBrush]

If Con + LibDem + DUP +UKIP is less than 323 then they can't govern, can they

They could form a minority government if the conservatives had the most seats with or without the formal support of other parties

HOWEVER

Such a government can only pass legislation with the support of enough other members to provide a majority. Therefore a coalition maybe more preferable as it is easy to block legislation - especially if there are dissenters within their own ranks. This makes it easy for the government to collapse. In order for there to be another election two thirds of MPs have to back another election. (434 votes)

The further, any government whether it be a coalition or not is to 323, the more difficult to work on a day to day basis. It would be difficult even for a single party to do but obviously there are added complications with a multi party agreement. The question would really be how close a single party was to 323 as to whether it would be easier or harder for them to go it alone or work as a coalition.

I do feel at the 280 - 290 mark which seems to be the most the CONs are coming up with in the polls (Labour are coming up with less) this isn't enough for a stable single party and they probably would be better working in coalition even as a minority. But I think others might call it differently.

CONSEQUENTLY

I think that a minority CON government might struggle more to get enough votes on a day to day basis than a minority LAB one as Labour probably can get more people to work with them, without the need for a formal agreement with another party. The CONs probably need a coalition more than LAB for stability for this reason.

However if LAB get less seats than the CONs then they won't have the same mandate to rule as the CONs, and the CONs can block them. I'm pretty sure this is likely to be Labour's gamble and the Lib Dems are probably also aware of the same, which may affect whether they decide to go into power with either party. A LAB/LD minority government could be an option that no one is really considering at this moment in time. This is why I think that the balance of power really could rest with the LDs again this time, if Miliband is genuinely ruling out a coalition with the SNP. Clegg probably has the best chance of being in the cabinet in the next government out of the three of them at this point - provided he can defend his own seat of course.

THEREFORE

I think the only real certainty is that the most unpopular of government proposals will have real difficulty getting passed by any government. Hence noise of cutting x, y and z or introducing a, b or c may be a lot more difficult than people realise. Which actually might help swing voters who might be worried voting a particular way. I find this interesting that no one has really highlighted this much in the press, but then all the newspapers have come out with a political line so no one wants to tell you this because it will weaken their own case for the throne. I'm more surprised it hasn't been covered more by the BBC or C4, but again they may have their hands tied by the law on broadcasting and influencing the election. It will chop off the hands of an aggressive austerity CON government or a cash happy LAB government.

Also, in the event the Conservatives form the government a referendum on the EU could easily get blocked by LAB/SNP with the LDs either blocking or abstaining depending on what they do. (Thank fuck). But this will leave Cameron able to say that he tried to get it through - but it could mean the government collapses in the process. And will utterly fuck off UKIP.

Certainly Miliband's gamble here is an interesting one.

The questions are really how much do people trust him and will it pay off.

And WATCH Cleggy...

[BubGal13]

I'm still holding out hope for Con-Lib coalition to continue. Strong suggestions that a possible flaw in the current predictions is an underestimate of Conservative support - with so many "shy" Tory voters as I also think is the case on these boards.

[MaidOfStars]

...so therefore, even if Lab win fewer seats than Con, they have better credibility to form a minority government (where better = more effective, not better= better policies). Con will give up at the point of minority government - they NEED a formal coalition.

[MaidOfStars]

CaptainHolt - whichever group have the most seats between them will form the government.

Average poll predictions have Lab+SNP+Green hovering around the magic number. Which by definition, means Con+all others are also hovering around the magic number.

If Labour can snag Plaid, that group will go into the lead.

But that's formal coalitions. I don't know the process if both Lab and Con want to form a minority government. I think that the general principle (a minority government supported by votes for key issues) favours Labour, because they will align reasonably well with SNP/Green/etc (and many MPs will vote anti-Tory on principle). I don't see how Con can practically run a minority government because they will have more votes against them on key issues than for.

[juneau]

I don't think Labour want to get into bed with the SNP though. Why? Because the SNP's number one aim is and always has been Scottish independence - and Ed doesn't want that, nor does he want that happening 'on his watch'. If he does a deal with NS we all know that the price of her compliance will be another referendum on Scottish independence and Labour doesn't want at any price. What they want is to win back those voters who are currently planning to vote SNP and if Scotland leaves the UK then that will never happen. Until a year ago Scotland was Labour's heartland - the last PM was a Scottish Labour man FGS!

[UnoPan]

Labour MUST be ruling out an SNP 'deal' because the Tories are making a lot of in-roads into the 'fear of Nicola' factor and demonising her.
Of course Ed knows that IF the numbers add up it will be him and NS in the darkened room doing a deal. But he can't say that now at all.

[CaptainHolt]

So what will happen if

Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green

is more than

Con + LibDem + DUP +UKIP

But Conservatives have more seats than Labour

If Con + LibDem + DUP +UKIP is less than 323 then they can't govern, can they?

But if labour rule out 'a deal' with the progressive alliance then neither can they.

Maybe that's the plan. Ed knows Con et al can't get the seats needed so he will have to 'do the right thing for the country' and do the deal he has so vigorously ruled out.

We'll all be sitting here in 30 years saying 'You can't trust Labour, remember in 2015.....' etc.

[Lucyloves101]

Surely there would be riots and protests if we were looking at a UKIP / tori coalition!? It would be a fight or flight situation for me.

[BettyCatKitten]

I fucking hope not

[Tiredemma]

In 2010- when it was evident that no party won by a 'landslide' - both Labour and the Tories fawning around the Lib Dems to prop them up in a coalition- I had hoped for a second General Election. I think only then would you really get a true picture of who WE would want to lead the country. I believe that if it is that close- then more people would feel compelled to vote a second time.

Or maybe I am dreaming

[RedToothBrush]

I think the trouble I have with a minority Con or Lab government going it alone is that unless they have enough seats it really isn't in the best interests of the country. The risk of the government collapsing and there being a second general election is too high. I wouldn't think too highly of either party unless they were close to 323.

Which isn't happening.

[Miltonmaid]

They mean they'll run a minority govt, knowing that SNP will vote with them without being given a formal deal. If they don't then the SNP will be voting with Tories against Labour which I'm guessing they would find difficult to do.

[juneau]

The thing with the two main parties ruling things in and out at this stage is that they're still hoping they can pull a majority out of thin air and the fact is, its very, very unlikely to happen. So the Conservatives can say that they will only form a government with another party that will agree to a referendum on Europe, and Labour can say that they won't be doing any deals with the SNP, but without giving ground neither of them will be able to form a government.

By issuing these threats they're hoping to cajole voters into ticking their box next Thurs, but from last night's debate its clear that voters just don't believe ANY of them or their promises any more. Too many times key policies and promises have been dropped as soon as they're not convenient, so all we can be sure of at this stage is that whoever gets to form a govt next week will HAVE TO do deals and negotiate with their opponents.

[CaptainHolt]

What does everyone make of Miliband's ruling out of a SNP coalition?

I think if you say you would rather hand over power to the Conservatives than form a coalition with your democratically elected political allies then you have already handed over power. I don't see the point in voting labour if they refuse to try and form a government. They know they aren't going to win a majority. They have to 'do a deal' with someone, or lose.

[MaidOfStars]

Any evidence that SNP voters are switching to Labour though? Given that's his aim...

[MaidOfStars]

I believe him. And I think it's a strong stance to take. Whether it will be the right stance remains to be seen.