All bets are on!

GT, it looks likely that Clegg will lose his seat, so he can say what he wants.
I heard it, too, about Clegg and Cameron deciding behind closed doors.
Sunday Politics was interesting this week. Apparently the Tories are targeting mainly Libdem seats and only one Labour seat. If the Tories win those seats and there is a coalition talk between Libdems and Tories, why would the Libdems go along with the party that took most of their seats?
Any agreement this time will need the agreement of the party membership, not just MPs.

Whitewave, I also like the Steve Coogan broadcast on behalf of the Labour party, particularly what he says about the NHS.
Apparently Philip Pullman and Mark Haddon are both supporting the NHA.

Those of you on here who are attacking the SNP, did you want the SNP to stay in the UK? If so, you are just getting what you wanted. They are part of the UK, and have just as much right as any other party to take their rightful place in parliament when they are elected. Because they are part of the UK, everything that happens in parliament affects them. There is no Evel as any money kept in England to use on, for example, HS2, means less money for Scotland. Should the SNP not be allowed to make decisions on HS2?

They were saying today on the Politics Today that it doesn't matter who eventually is able to form a government the SNP will have to be listened to regardless as neither mainstream parties will on present polls - and of course if they are right - be able to command a majority.

Someone also suggested that Labour might abstain rather than vote down a Tory Queens speech - that I would find utterly unacceptable.

Ad nauseam!

Which the SNP will only do if they get something in return....on and on and on

Well,I Expect lots of us have nightmare visions of nothing getting done in Parliament because of fights with the SNP, but maybe we imagine a Labour government trying to get deals done and hoping the SNP will support them.

I have to say that I was amazed when I heard NC say the EU referendum was no longer a red line. The one defining feature of the LDs has been their pro-Europe stance and if there were to be a referendum it would surely be a no. I have this nightmare vision of a Con/Lib Dem government where nothing gets done because all the energies go into fights with the SNP and setting up the EU referendum

Thanks I think!

Oh STB this is one occasion that I'm glad you've become involved in GN!
Your opinions/questions seem naive and disingenuous at times but you really seem to read the explanations offered by those who know what they're talking about and I sincerely hope you find that such answers interesting and illuminating.

Mind you, Clegg was saying the same thing on 15th April, so it's nothing new.

Economics and political theory are indeed inextricably linked. And the latter is what we vote on - very few people have the faintest clue about the detail of the economics, but they vote on the principles behind the political theories they are presented with, and choose that which accords with their feelings, rather than having a full grasp of the economic implications of their vote.

I am very surprised at the campaign the Lib Dems have fought - they knew full well that many of their supporters felt let down by the policies that they had to let go of in any situation where compromise is called for; but they missed the chance to say which policies the DID influence for the better; which opportunities they took to use their power to curb Tory excesses - that is the virtue of a coalition, as the extremes are tempered. Are we to assume that they had no influence at all?

Oh yes, I've just read the article in the Guardian. I won't put a link up because I'm sure most people on this thread have already seen it!

He has agreed to drop the red line with regard to the EU referendum, as DC said that is one thing he simply can't compromise on particularly with the right breathing down his neck.

I am not sure that the Libs can tolerate that as it one of their holy grails or perhaps it is something else they have been lying willing to compromise on without telling the voting public, until a couple of days ago and after 5 years of saying they would not vote for a referendum.

Where did you hear that, whitewave? All I've been hearing today is tattle about who said what to whom and various versions of 'Ooh, the things he's said to me in private...'

Hear Clegg has been busy doing deals with Cameron behind closed doors - wonder if the rest of the Libs will be Patsys and troop after him?

Am I right in saying that say, in the middle of last century, politians listened to the economists? Much nore than they do now[not sure if they listen at all now].

GT - yes you are right I suppose.
I have always seen it as a seperate subject. But I suppose it has always been political really. I have seen it as being more maths related.

Sorry went off piste there.

Just talking politics with my DS i didn't realize that we can't use Trident without getting a code from the USA!!! Unbelievable!

Oh soon - I just tried to explain that politics hasn't taken over economics - economics is inherently political

I think that politics has taken over many things, economics included.

Mishap - no matter how it's presented, economics is not a science. The various economic theories are underpinned by ideologies which are based on values. Keynes v Milton Friedman. There really is not an answer and all economists have 'axes to grind'. I suppose in the end it depends on the sort of society you want. The deregulation of the banks, started by Thatcher ( along with the deregulation of financial institution in general) and Reagan, and accepted fully by the Conservatives along with Labour, all though the Blair/Brown years allowed the banking crisis to happen- it started in the States and spread. The borrowing that then happened did in many people's opinions, prevent the total melt down of Western capitalism. This was simply not a crisis caused solely by Labour - it affected all western economies. Comparisons between us and Greece for eaxample, are fallacious - it's like comparing two people with debts of £100k when one debt is a mortgage and the other is on a credit card. I along with left of centre people in general will be Keynesians because it does less harm to those in greatest need whereas the neo- liberal Friedman school allows the rich unfettered freedom and has ( IMO) a touching, unreasonable belief in the 'trickle down effect'. I wish there were an answer like what is the square root of 16 but there isn't and any economist who says otherwise is basically being at least disingenuous. If economists really had the answers, the global banking crisis would not have happened ( or the Great Depression)

Oh it came up twice sorry folks!

varianI am in total agreement with you, I have used my postal vote, in the hopes of doing exactly that. Not giving the SNPs any more power than they have

I am not an economist, but there does seem to be a difference of opinion as to how you get out of a recession: spend your way out (i.e. create lots of jobs by investing in infrastructure, NHS and housing and thus giving people money to spend to boost the economy and reduce the benefits bill) or austerity measures, which are unpopular and hit the poorest hardest.

I do not know what the answer is - I am just floating these ideas. Perhaps there is an economist out there with no political axe to grind - I wish!

Splendid letter from Dehlia Smith who supports Labour about the NHS.