Danny

She probably just said "Ed isn't prime minister material", and her supposedly preferring Cameron was just this diplomat's conjecture. Remember even if the memo is accurate (as in, hasn't been doctored), it's only a second-hand account based on what someone had heard from someone else.

They won't have made up the memo, but the civil servant who wrote the memo says he suspects Sturgeon had not actually said it and that it was probably lost in translation! It's pretty desperate stuff for Labour to be trying to make hay out of this. Also, tbf, it's possible to think Ed isn't PM material, while still preferring him over the greater evil of Cameron.

Miliband has a positive approval rating (more people saying they think he's doing well as leader than say he's doing badly) for the first time since his first few weeks as leader in 2010. Still a few points behind Cameron, though.

His delivery/performance was not great, but I feel the Tories' main message of "we need to keep cutting spending to get the deficit down" is getting through. If you asked random people on the street, I think quite a few would say that if you asked what the Tories' main message was (even though many would disagree with that message). On the other hand, if you asked those same people what the main message of Labour's campaign was, I think you'd get blank stares all round.

Last night will be a good test of whether "the centre ground" really is where elections are won. Miliband could not have been more "centrist" on the spending cuts question if he tried, he was literally equidistant between the "extremes" of Cameron and Sturgeon. It could be that he seems the most in-line with the mainstream, but my suspicion is that in the long run his arguments were too weak and convoluted to make any real impression on people, whereas Cameron's argument (whether you agree with it or not) was much more straightforward and powerful.

Clegg behind again in new Sheffield Hallam poll: Labour on 36%, Clegg on 34%.

Today's two polls had a 1% Tory lead and 1% Labour lead. The Lib Dems are projected to get just 7 seats on tonight's YouGov poll. The rising Tory score is fatal for them, because they were relying on keeping the swing down in the Tory/LD marginals since most of the Lib-Lab marginals are write-offs.

Yup! I really wish that Nicola Sturgeon was the leader of UK Labour tbh.

Well, yes, but Miliband's personal beliefs are a different thing to people thinking the policies are actually different. You're right that people seem to be finally starting to believe Ed as a man stands for something and that he personally cares about the poor (whereas previously people just thought he was a career politician who believed in nothing), but - anecdote alert - people still don't seem to think there'd be any difference between the Tories and Labour in what they'd actually do. People don't have the loony-leftie view that I have that Labour are purposely choosing to sign up to needless austerity - the consensus seems to be that there's no money "available" for Ed to do anything differently to the Tories even if he wanted to. Unless Labour counter that and try to dispute the belief that cuts don't have to be inevitable, they're screwed, because it will mean the battleground gets shrunk down to "best statesman" since they'd believe there was only possible course on economic policies (irrespective of what Labour might like to do differently in an ideal world).

The election now plastered all over the media, so I kind of think we could see a decisive shift in the polls in the coming days. I actually think a lot of people until now were not even aware an election was coming. Imo, most likely is a shift to the Tories, quite possibly into a majority-winning position, as the many people who prefer Dave as PM move over, especially since people still perceive little difference between the two parties on policy so they'll figure they may as well go with the leader who "looks the part" and will "stand up to Putin" the best. On the other hand, less likely, people getting into an election mindset could mean the many people who are terrified of a Tory government (which still outnumbers people who are terrified of a Labour government) rally round Labour, squeezing down the Green, "Labour-Kipper" and non-votes columns.

4% Tory lead tonight. As you were.

4-point Labour lead in the first poll taken after the debate. Probably an outlier, but has prompted meltdown among the Tories at Politicalbetting, with this post being the highlight:

The option of selecting both is (inadvertently?) appropriate given the increasing likelihood that a "Grand Coalition" might be the only possible combination that could get a majority.

Someone at work today who was previously going to vote Tory is now saying she wants Ed to win because she doesn't want "bullying to win"(!).

There was a hilarious sequence on the news last night where they showed clips of George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander all saying almost EXACTLY THE SAME THING as each other ("we won't raise VAT, income tax or national insurance" almost verbatim from each).

Good grief, those MPs crying at that pompous guy who said he'd been "played like a fool".... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32070175 Nice to see this is what they get emotional at rather than people being driven to food banks.

But then I don't understand how there could be a significant difference between the Tories and Labour if they're both going to get rid of the deficit in an almost identical timeframe (give or take a year) and neither is going to raise taxes in any meaningful way. The equation just doesn't add up unless the spending cuts planned are also roughly equal. And more to the point, I don't think it's going to add up to the public either (or seem "credible" :P ): there's a trade-off to everything in life, and it's not going to be believable that spending cuts could be significantly less unless there's a "cost" to it, be it a higher deficit or higher taxes. No matter how difficult it is to be upfront about either of those things with the current media mood, it's necessary because otherwise the public are just going to dismiss what Labour say as unbelievable milk-and-honey stuff.

Can Qassandra or Soy Adrian please tell me what Labour's economic policies are, because I'm genuinely confused at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, we're told by the IFS that Labour would make much smaller cuts than the Tories, yet at the same time we're told that Labour are going to cut the deficit as quickly as the Tories AND are not going to raise any of the major taxes (VAT, income tax, national insurance). So how exactly is it going to be done??? And God knows how they expect the average member of the public to have a clue what their stance is, when I'm paying more attention than most yet am still clueless.

Harry will have his first solo single out by this time next year.

Lib Dem ferrets fighting in a (very small) sack... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/m...ays-vince-cable I think Vince Cable would be a better choice for leader than Farron anyway, personally.

Honest question: has a message of "Labour cuts are nicer than Tory cuts" ever convinced anyone in your experience? Cuts are cuts are cuts.

Exactly. Those people who are opposing him in the shadow cabinet are only there because he allows them to be there. If he'd had the guts to force them to either sign up to what he wanted or be shown the door in that long period where Labour were ahead in the polls (and thus when his position was secure no matter what he did), all this could've been avoided. But he took the coward's way out, said completely contradictory things to the different wings of the party to avoid rocking the boat by telling the "Blairites" what they didn't want to hear, and now his chickens have come home to roost. One of the basic requirements of a party leader is to make your case and have the willpower to make sure your case prevails.

The Sun doing their best to boost destroy the Tory vote:

Exactly. It's politically quite smart because it gives the IMPRESSION that it helps normal people, but to actually benefit in any meaningful way, you need to already be pretty rich.

And of course, the big one which the article didn't mention: public spending, where Blair simply said he'd stick to modest increases, rather than signing up to massive cuts when services are already on life support. You have a point about the context of the times, but that only proves what i've been saying: that Miliband is not more left-wing "in real terms", the only difference is that the whole political debate has moved well to the Right since the 1990s (which Labour themselves have partly allowed to happen) and the rich kick up a far bigger stink about the most mild of progressive policies now than they did back then. That one is prepared to self-identify as a "socialist" when the other didn't, or that one occasionally makes an abstract speech about the problems of free markets without any policies to address those problems, doesn't affect how left-wing the actual policy platforms are. Hence why Miliband is doing so much worse at holding onto left-wing/"core" voters than Blair did.