Good! I could never see the Daily Mail reading classes swallowing a coalition with Clegg anyway. No doubt they’ll knife Cameron in the back as soon as they can after he fails to get a majority and wander off further to the right to ensure a moat of deep blue water (complete with duck house) seperates them even further from reality.

There isn’t enough common ground. Cameron’s deathbead conversion to the attractions of PR has to be seen for what it is: desperation in the face of an imminent failure, followed by an extended period in opposition. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bloke.

The electorate would be happier if the Lib Dems just came out and said “NO PACTS – with anyone” – If you want a Lib Dem government, then VOTE for it.

That’s what I intend to do, even though it probably won’t unseat my reprehensibly corrupt Labour MP, but it will count towards a fairer PR voting system.

If the Lib Dems only ever achieve PR then that will be enough for starters.

No one in their right mind could work with the Tories, you’ed have to be a Tory to do so.

We have an opportunity here to get rid of FPTP. how we do it does not matter. Until we have a fairer electoral system we will never achieve the fairer society Nick Clegg is on the cusp of being able to deliver

@1: “No doubt they’ll knife Cameron in the back as soon as they can after he fails to get a majority and wander off further to the right . . ”

It’s worrying to read of the several rumours in the press of bubbling Conservative plots against Cameron should he fail to get a clear majority of seats in the polls.

The old nightmare was: Vote Clegg to get Osborne. But it’s guessing time now.

Even if Cameron does get that call from Buckingham Palace after the election, it’s starting to look increasingly likely that there could be a replay of what happened with John Major and his government after the 1992 election.

Remember John Redwood and his barmy army?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2177192.stm

Cameron has been ambivalent about the Thatcher legacy so there’s no knowing what the diehards might do. I strongly suspect Cameron’s proposal for new legislation to force a general election within six months whenever the PM changes mid term is to really intended shore up his own position should he become PM.

Well – we now have more common ground to walk together.

Looks like Tory James Paice might find himself out of a job in South East Cambridgeshire – but only if the attack on the Conservatives is combined.

Now a question for Mr Clegg: if your chappie can see a chance in South East Cambridgeshire thanks to the possibility of 10,000 Labour voters from 2005 voting LibDem this time will you be going a little easier on the rhetoric?

“Cameron has been ambivalent about the Thatcher legacy so there’s no knowing what the diehards might do. I strongly suspect Cameron’s proposal for new legislation to force a general election within six months whenever the PM changes mid term is to really intended shore up his own position should he become PM.”

That was my immediate reaction. I’m surprised that the pundits failed to spot what seems to be the obvious motive for this.

Emerging news suggests that Cameron’s standing as Conservative leader is weakening while the Conservative campaign is increasingly looking a one-man show. But it’s unclear whether that is a deliberate strategic choice to boost his leader image or because other Conservative front benchers don’t want to be seen to be associated with the shrinking Conservative lead in the polls and the growing credibility of the LibDems as a political force.

With all the speeches about the dire consequences of hung Parliaments, I was struck by this staggering set of stark electoral statistics showing just how unrepresentative our FPTP electoral system is:

“At the last election, Labour candidates on average needed 18,866 votes to win their seats. By contrast, Lib Dem candidates needed nearly 20,000 votes to win their seats and Conservatives almost 21,000.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bcfbae8-5193-11df-bed9-00144feab49a.html

The flood of political speeches claiming strong governments are essential for good government led me to wonder whether Parliamentary candidates should have obligatory IQ tests. Didn’t strong government get us into our present predicament, wars and all? There have never been previous suggestions that Tony Blair’s majorities in successive elections were too small for strong government.

The Tories wont make any tough decisions until they win a majority after the next election in six months time, and Nick Clegg could be the patsy help them succeed. For more comment see; http://torypartyflushed.blogspot.com

The Tories wont make any tough decisions until the win a majority after the next election in six months time, and Nick Clegg must be careful not to be the patsy help them succeed. For more comment see; http;//torypartyflushed.blogspot.com