Danny

That's the point - the Tories, unlike Labour, know what a fatal position it is for Labour to be seen as happy to slash spending, and are going to be exploiting it to the max all the way til polling day and reminding people at every opportunity that Labour are committed to massive spending cuts too. It allows the Tories to (a) say to the many anti-cuts voters* that Labour aren't representing their views so they should vote for a proper anti-cuts party instead; and (b ) allows them to say to everyone else that, since a Labour government will have the same policies as the Tories anyway, you might as well stick with the side that gives you the more competent prime minister. *anti-cuts people making up 61% according to the latest poll, with 32% taking a more left-wing position than me by actually wanting to INCREASE spending further (as opposed to just broadly keeping it at current levels) even when it's pointed out this will involve more borrowing: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/14/voters...ting-borrowing/

The Tories are happily promoting the fact that Labour have signed up to Tory economic plans: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/g...the-Greens.html

I think the first article raises some good points, but I find this bit to be a bit of a leap of logic: Who says Muhammad is being used to stereotype Arabs and Muslims more broadly, rather than just Muhammad "himself"?

Labour might be ditching the one policy which was close to getting any public awareness and that was an asset (disclaimer: the Sun is the source, thus obvious caveats apply): Labour preparing to u-turn on energy price freeze

Prophet Muhammad on the new Charlie Hebdo cover. Suedehead edit - if you are offended by depictions of Muhammad, don't look any further. http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/12/12-charlie-hebdo.w245.h368.2x.jpg

How is "lots of cuts" or "lots and lots of cuts" going to appear a clear, appetising choice to the 50%+ of the public who want no cuts at all? Irrespective of personal opinions, I'm still yet to understand the rationale behind how Labour think this is going to be a winning strategy. I couldn't care less how much difference there is between the two main parties compared to the past, when the whole spectrum for the mainstream parties has been shifted massively to the right on economic issues.

http://comres.co.uk/polls/ITV_News_Index_1...anuary_2015.pdf

The main parties' favourite issue of the deficit getting even LESS important in the eyes of the public as the election draws closer, despite the politicians constantly ranting on about it.

In May 2009, the SNP had a 16% lead in a Westminster poll. Admittedly Labour had taken the lead by this point, 4 months before the election, but it's possible the referendum means things are running "behind schedule" so to speak. I agree with you that the SNP will probably win the Scottish Parliament election, quite likely with another majority, since that will boil down a to a choice over who people want to run Scotland (and people SHOCKINGLY seem unmoved by Jim Murphy's much-trumpeted dazzling charisma thus far), but isn't it possible that the general election will like usual boil down to a choice between whehter people want a Labour government or Tory government in Westminster? Admittedly it's hard to know from the outside just how fundamentally the referendum has changed things in Scotland. Any result there wouldn't surprise me tbh.

Labour aren't going to hold all their seats, but I do think they could still stay the largest party in Scotland. For whatever reason, Scottish polls aren't very good at predicting outcomes of elections very far in advance -- ahead of the 2010 election, the SNP also held a big lead over Labour for general election polls until a dramatic turnaround in the final months. Then a year later it was the exact opposite, with Labour miles ahead in Scottish Parliament polls before it disintegrated when the campaign got underway. My guess would be that Scottish pollsters aren't very good at getting people to distinguish between their preferences between the different types of election, until a certain election is imminent. Also worth noting the SNP didn't do particularly well in the European elections (there was actually a small swing from them to Labour compared to 2009).

Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 1h 1 hour ago Labour must change the subject. As long as we're debating who'll take tough (fiscal) decisions the Tories are gaining Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 15m 15 minutes ago Each time Labour confirm they'll cut the SNP&Greens gain voters. @GeorgeEaton gets the Tories' #SplitTheLeft strategy http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/...set-labour-cuts …

Labour have spent today furiously denying that they will spend more / cut less than the Conservatives....

But you just said that George Osborne was going beyond that and wanting to run some huge surplus, rather than just balancing the budget....how can Labour be voting for Tory deficit plans yet not committing themselves to them simultaneously? :huh:

If Labour plan to cut less than the Tories, why are they voting for George Osborne's "fiscal responsibility" nonsense tying them explicitly to the Tories' deficit reduction targets and timetable? I'm confused now, because I genuinely thought Labour's argument was that they would have the same total volume of cuts as the Conservatives, but just that they'd somehow be "fairer" or cuts in different areas?

Then why do the public, the Tories themselves and increasingly even the braindead Westminster commentariat not see this supposed huge gulf between the two parties? (Genuine question, what is this £50bn figure based on?)

Why? Even the consensus on Politicalbetting, dominated by most of the world's only internet-literate Tories, is that there are few discernible differences between the Tories and Labour's platforms (though they see it as Labour "accepting the inevitability" of endless austerity), and that there would be no policy obstacles to a coalition apart from egos.

Aside from egos and mindless football team-like tribalism, what would the stumbling blocks be? The only significant dispute on policies I could see arising is over the bedroom tax - and frankly I suspect a few Tories would secretly be relieved even to have an excuse to junk that.

The Financial Times has predicted that there will be a "grand coalition" between the Tories and Labour after the election. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fb55f168-807f-11...y?segid=0100320 I honestly wouldn't be surprised.

I want the Scottish/Welsh voting system -- we keep the good bits of the current system (i.e. decent constituency MPs with firm stances will still get elected, not bland inoffensive people that AV would've thrown up), but it still gives you a proportional outcome.

It's largely "self-selection" bias to do with the ages of the people living there. I don't know about Hallam (even I have my limits to how much I talk about places I don't know much about :P ), but in Withington and Wavertree, the people who voted Tory 30-40 years ago have moved out and retired to genteel Cheshire villages or wherever, while the younger people who've replaced them there hate the Tories like most northerners under 40 do, no matter how wealthy they get.

I know, but even "wealthy" people in northern cities tend to be more compassionate than people in southern shires. Would it be fair to say Sheffield Hallam is becoming "Guardianised" in the way that Liverpool Wavertree and Manchester Withington are (despite both being wealthy on the face of it)?

You're right that universal swing won't apply, in that it's probably going to be even worse for Labour - the SNP's heartlands voted against independence, so there's only so much further support can rise there (in fact it might even fall in a few of the seats they hold), meaning the increase will be concentrated in the pro-independence Glasgow and Central Belt. Starting to feel a bit better about the bet I put on it -- if Labour gets a majority, I think they should take it. Though as ever, that's assuming Labour have policies that appeal to decent people in places like Sheffield, rather than tailoring their policies to snotty Tories in the likes of St Albans who only care about themselves.

Eh? I must've missed this, because far as I've seen they've not been saying that at all -- they said they were going to vote for Tory spending plans and their "deficit reduction timetable" in Parliament! Or are we really sticking with message of "it's possible to make the same size cuts but have them be nice fluffy Labour cuts rather than nasty Tory cuts"? Hodges is spot on (not something I thought I'd ever say) when he says that NO-ONE is ever going to believe Labour will "balance the books" so it's pointless saying they will and alienating the many people worried about the idea of yet more spending cuts while also not winning over anyone on the other side. And he's also right when he says going full-on anti-cuts would actually give them some sense of purpose and would give voters the excuse they're looking for to vote Labour -- there will have been so many people in recent years thinking "I want to vote Labour because generally I like them more than the Tories, but they're just not giving me any reasons why I should". (Which goes for avowedly left-wing people as well as more disinterested "centre-ground" people who only respond to clear-cut messages from politicians.)

Now even the Progress Tendency's messiah Dan Hodges thinks "Red Ed" isn't being left-wing enough on spending cuts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/e...-word-cuts.html

Not really? I never said huge tax rises would be popular! Even though I personally would have no problem with them.