Brown has a good show, Clegg surprises, Cameron exposed.

[Grimble Gromble]

Well done to both Brown and particulary Clegg for a good indepth showing at the first debate tonight. Brown had all the usual numbers, facts and substance at hand and delivered them with rightfull confidence as I would expect, but I must say hats off to Nick Clegg on coming across very passionate and delivered
his arguments superbly and must of gained much respect, where I expect around a 2 point jump over the next few days, probably at the Tories expense.

......wait for it, Cameron on the other hand was exposed by both Brown and Clegg as most his arguments did not hold much water and on a number of occasions seemed politically niave and out of his depth. where even his silver tongue couldnt save him.

Clegg wins - bring on round 2

[Tete123]

Lib Dem policy will be scrutinised now that it is out in the wider arena; Andrew Neil has already called to question they're plans on This Week (Sarah Teather) and I would like to see how giving up our Nuclear deterrent will play out with the public. Brown did okay tonight, although his attempts to saddle up to Nick Clegg were telling and maybe highlights that he lacks confidence in his own arguments for political and social reform or that he is attempting to smooth the way for a Lab/Lib coalition - my view is that the public will see through Brown and realise that he has been involved in the leadership and direction of Labour and its policy for the past 13 years and has thus far shown little appetite for either political reform until 1)the expenses scandal broke, 2)the election was imminent; therefore I find his sudden attempts to portray himself as a moderniser somewhat shallow.

Cameron played a straight bat in this debate, possibly sat back a little too much, allowing Brown to browbeat the message of Tory inaction, and argue of a lack of clarity in Tory protection of front-line services - time will tell whether he continues with this tactic in the coming debates of whether he will attack Labours record in Government and the holes in Lib Dem policy.

End result is none of the leaders, or party's for that matter have been honest with the electorate so far during this election (little wonder of the antipathy towards politics) but, this is only to be expected - any attempts to be honest would be result in the politician/party being unelectable - maybe the British public should take a long hard look at itself before passing judgement on the politics of this country - there is a lot of truth in the saying you get what you ask for and I think a corrupt political system is the inevitable result of the general ignorance of political matters in our society.

[Balthazar]

Cameron came fourth. He needs to be careful about suggesting we nuke China. The Chinks are already complaining (wouldn't you?)

[Midas]

I only saw the first part where immigration was being discussed, but on the basis of that I though Brown came over as smug and arrogant and was trotting out little more than preprepared answers, Clegg did the same to some degree but was at least pleasant about it, but only Cameron seemed to make any attempts at being genuine in his answers. That's all based purely on my observation of the leaders as people, not on their policies, but as another general observation, I have concerns that public debates like this will do little to resolve anything, and in the minds of a lot of people will simply confirm what hypocrisy there is in politics.

[DTE]

Clegg did very well, he made an attempt to actually answer the questions as asked, not simply recycle pledges from the manifesto with the questioner's name at the front. Brown suffered with the transition to TV from parliament, constantly referring to things "I have done" and making partisan jibes against Cameron. You know, just like I predicted yesterday, wink, wink. Cameron was the biggest disappointment, all show no substance, Mr Flash had a major off-day. Honestly the man could make empty rhetoric an olympic sport. And what was with that final statement, "choose hope, over fear"? Jesus. Thats pop-philosophising from Star Wars, not an election campaign. Might as well have said "Voting labour leads to the dark side"

No suprise really that the Lib Dems did well (or at least appeared to do well, I don't place much faith in instant polls, its a legacy poll we really need, ask again over the weekend) considering Clegg's job was the easiest. Cameron has to position himself as the new man in town with all the answers, Brown had to try to breathe life into a 13 year old government, all Nick had to do was hold his own. Still, with 2 debates to go, and with the subject of foriegn affairs not discussed as of yet, I can see Clegg picking up more points off Scameron and CashmyGoldGordon in the next couple of weeks.

[Expounder]

Well done to both Brown and particulary Clegg for a good indepth showing at the first debate tonight. Brown had all the usual numbers, facts and substance at hand and delivered them with rightfull confidence as I would expect, but I must say hats off to Nick Clegg on coming across very passionate and delivered
his arguments superbly and must of gained much respect, where I expect around a 2 point jump over the next few days, probably at the Tories expense.

......wait for it, Cameron on the other hand was exposed by both Brown and Clegg as most his arguments did not hold much water and on a number of occasions seemed politically niave and out of his depth. where even his silver tongue couldnt save him.

Clegg wins - bring on round 2

I have my doubts about the theory that Lib Dem votes would be at the expense of the Tory party. I can't see any Tory voter embracing The Lib Dems love of the EU. After all the Tory party is planning to withdraw from most of the agreements made by previous governments with the EU.

The reason I say this is that the Telegraph led today with a ringing endorsement of nick Clegg's performance in the debate last night. This tells me the Tories have nothing to fear from the Lib Dems and any votes gained by them would be lost by Labour who have a similar policy towards the EU which would dissipate the Labour vote, a transparently devious ploy by the old blue rag.

The Lib Dems and Nick Clegg can promise the earth knowing full well that will not be forming the next government. The debate so far has not been about gritty details of unpopular policies but general outlines of intentions in which Nick Clegg can outline what he wants as he will never be held to account. Even in a hung parliament he would have to tailor his cloth to meet immediate challenges to which ever party he gives his support.

Cameron seemed shrill and agitated and caught out by the air brushing jibe by Brown and would not answer questions on policing and education when challenged by Brown. His promise to increase spending on the NHS and the elderly [related subjects] contrasts starkly with earlier promises before the campaign to only guarantee to maintain funding for the NHS in his first year in office [a statement now conveniently forgotten]. He is now guaranteeing total support for the full term. This, along with all his other opportunistic policy statement changes through the campaign means that when in office will have a reason to renege on anything he has promised on the pretext that he never new how bad the government books were when he took over.
.

Brown surprised me as being unflappable as I thought he may have stumbled somewhere in the debate. In fact he came over as someone at ease and also a reassuring presence. As an incumbent he didn't have the freedom to espouse untried policies of the other two but committed himself well in the first debate.

All in All it's best that the first round should be treated as a beauty and sound bite contest rather than an in depth political debate. Lets hope the other two to come reveal more unsavory details of what we are likely to expect in the next five years.

[JacquesMagique]

Cameron ... needs to be careful about suggesting we nuke China. The Chinks re already complaining (wouldn't you?)

I thought that! Was a pretty dodgey thing to say!

[Balthazar]

I thought that! Was a pretty dodgey thing to say!

In the US it would be a deal-breaker. If a US Presidential candidate in a TV debate said what Cameron said, the press would be all over him like a rash, claiming he was too stupid/loose-lipped/unable to think on his feet etc to be President. Okay, Britain's not America, thank God, and we're new to this TV debate malarkey, so Cameron should be given some leeway. But he needs to be careful about nuking the Chinks. They don't like it up 'em and who can blame them?

Cameron: You can't polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter.

[newspresenter]

According to the itv/ComRes poll of 4,000 people after the first leaders debate, Nick Clegg has sent his party shockingly above Labour into a very strong second place, 11% ahead of the failing Gordon Brown.
Conservatives 36%
Lib Dems 35%
Labour 24%
Others 5%

However, Adam Boulton has just been on sky news saying the 4,000 pollsters wern't quite representative of a poll, and judging by the others 5%, that seems about right, but one things for sure, Mr Brown didn't do well in front of 9.4 million people, Nick Clegg certainly won it, and Mr Brown certainly lost it.

[newspresenter]

Nicholas Griffin:
“It was noticed that one of the questioners was the same person who took part in the Question Time show upon which I featured,” he said.

The rules for the TV debate included a stipulation that the audience was supposed to come from within a 30-mile radius of the host city. In last night’s case, this was Manchester.

However, a 17-year old, Joel Weiner, who attends the Jewish Free School in Brent, North London, appeared on last night’s show — as he did during Mr Griffin’s appearance in the BBC’s West London studios.

“At the time, Mr Wiener told the media that the BBC had approached him to take part in Question Time, not the other way round.

“Now suddenly he pops up again in Manchester, 200 miles away. It is clear that the TV station owners manage audiences to suit it political agendas,” Mr Griffin said.


Hmm, very interesting.

[Opinionated]

or...just a thought, when Griffin was on QT it was term time and therefore Weiner was in London, but it being the Easter hols he was at home in Greater Manchester? Also articulate teen with politically motivated parents, why on earth would he apply to attend more than one televised political debate?
Anyway I think it was well stage and quite clearly Nick Clegg won.

[Opinionated]

Brown surprised me as being unflappable as I thought he may have stumbled somewhere in the debate. In fact he came over as someone at ease and also a reassuring presence. As an incumbent he didn't have the freedom to espouse untried policies of the other two but committed himself well in the first debate.

I agree that Brown did better than I expected and also his incumbency is something of a disadvantage.

All in All it was treated as the first round of a beauty and sound bite contest rather than an in depth political debate..

I'd agree with that also, for me the winner of the evening was Nick Clegg, perhaps it is time to try something new.

[Midas]

Cameron came fourth. He needs to be careful about suggesting we nuke China. The Chinks are already complaining (wouldn't you?)

He didn't suggest that at all; what he actually said is:

DAVID CAMERON: Let me answer that directly because I think it's important. I think the most important duty of any government, anyone who wants to be Prime Minister of this country, is to protect and defend our United Kingdom. And are we really happy to say that we'd give up our independent nuclear deterrent when we don't know what is going to happen with Iran, we can't be certain of the future in China, we don't know exactly what our world will look like? I say we should always have the ultimate protection of our independent nuclear deterrent. That's why we voted to make sure that happened.

A big difference to your sensationalised tabloid journalism type remark!

[JacquesMagique]

Nicholas Griffin:
“It was noticed that one of the questioners was the same person who took part in the Question Time show upon which I featured,” he said.

The rules for the TV debate included a stipulation that the audience was supposed to come from within a 30-mile radius of the host city. In last night’s case, this was Manchester.

However, a 17-year old, Joel Weiner, who attends the Jewish Free School in Brent, North London, appeared on last night’s show — as he did during Mr Griffin’s appearance in the BBC’s West London studios.

“At the time, Mr Wiener told the media that the BBC had approached him to take part in Question Time, not the other way round.

“Now suddenly he pops up again in Manchester, 200 miles away. It is clear that the TV station owners manage audiences to suit it political agendas,” Mr Griffin said.


Hmm, very interesting.

Nick griffin moaning about jews. Who'd have thought...

[JacquesMagique]

He didn't suggest that at all; what he actually said is:



A big difference to your sensationalised tabloid journalism type remark!

It's still not a very diplomatic thing to say about the largest country on the planet (population wise).

[DTE]

Nicholas Griffin:
“It was noticed that one of the questioners was the same person who took part in the Question Time show upon which I featured,” he said.

The rules for the TV debate included a stipulation that the audience was supposed to come from within a 30-mile radius of the host city. In last night’s case, this was Manchester.

However, a 17-year old, Joel Weiner, who attends the Jewish Free School in Brent, North London, appeared on last night’s show — as he did during Mr Griffin’s appearance in the BBC’s West London studios.

“At the time, Mr Wiener told the media that the BBC had approached him to take part in Question Time, not the other way round.

“Now suddenly he pops up again in Manchester, 200 miles away. It is clear that the TV station owners manage audiences to suit it political agendas,” Mr Griffin said.


Hmm, very interesting.

This kid was on Five Live this afternoon. He said he traveled up to Manchester to take part in the debate. The question he asked here was about education, specifically what the parties would do to revert the current trend of "over examined, under-taught" kids in education across the board. He said none of them adequately answered his question.

How they chose the audience is interesting but will probably remain shrouded in secrecy. Nice to know Griffin has a good memory for faces though. I wonder if he remembers that the guy currently following him round on the campaign trail dressed as a soldier, is in fact Adam Walker, a BNP candidate who caused controversy last year when he was sacked from his teaching job for writing racist comments on the internet.



http://www.vote-no-to-bnp.org.uk/wp-...10-getty_w.jpg

Protestors gather outside hearing of Adam Walker, BNP teacher - Times Online

Adam Walker is not a member of the armed forces. He is a prop. And not in the rugby sense.

[Balthazar]

Protestors gather outside hearing of Adam Walker, BNP teacher - Times Online

"it was alleged he used a school laptop to contribute racist and religiously intolerant views to online discussions during lessons. The alleged incident, in which he is said to have criticised Muslims, homosexuals and asylum seekers, is said to have happened between February and March 2007."

What is it with these people? They operate on this forum too, in little jerk circles, obsessing about gays and Muslims, moaning that their "culture" is being "diluted" by a few Islamics with beards, worried that Peter Tatchell will turn them gay, getting all upset when challenged.

They're an odd lot. Very un-British. Probably closet homosexuals - 'the lady doth protest too much.'

[Streetwalker]

After all the Tory party is planning to withdraw from most of the agreements made by previous governments with the EU.

.

What agreements would they be ? Tories are pro EU

[Opinionated]

"it was alleged he used a school laptop to contribute racist and religiously intolerant views to online discussions during lessons. The alleged incident, in which he is said to have criticised Muslims, homosexuals and asylum seekers, is said to have happened between February and March 2007."

I wonder if he is one of our members, a few prominent BNP supporters seem to have gone AWOL in the last six months, oooh intrigue!

Anyway off topic now, after all that fuss is everyone going to watch the next one? There was an interesting discussion on Channel 4 news about the various leadership qualities the three exhibited (the three panallists were entrepreneur James Caan, Ruby Wax and a psychologist whose name I can't remember); especially as James Caan (he of Dragon's Den and Alexander Mann) rates Brown highly in terms of inspiring confidence (especially over the economy which had my jaw on the floor).

[Expounder]

What agreements would they be ? Tories are pro EU

The three points in this link would have been just a start to withdraw completely from the EU with the exception of one or two trade agreements. They are[the Tories] between a rock and a hard place when it comes to UKIP. They have to try to out bid UKIP to hold on to votes. This now seems to have backfired, and Cameron is now back peddling on his policy now that the EU ultra right wing grouping he joined appears to be disintegrating.

He seems to be completely Isolated now and will have to eat humble pie and rejoin the main moderate group leaving UKIP as the only standard bearer of the Anti EU brigade which could split the right in Britain right down the middle.

Politics in Britain are in flux and change which makes for a possible volatile and dangerous period. We won't know the situation until the result of the GE.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Q&A: Conservative EU policy

[Balthazar]

Anyway off topic now, after all that fuss is everyone going to watch the next one?

You bet. I hear Tory Party HQ's going bonkers about Clegg. They're running about like headless chickens. No one quite knows what'll happen if the Libs get a 10-15% swing but it would change the whole game and certainly bollock the Tories in the South and South West.

I'm hoping Cameron will lose it at some point and have a temper tantrum like he did at one of the last PMQs. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer and is stuffed with that Etonian sense of entitlement. From the year dot he's been told he deserves to be PM, that it's his right. If he sees that slipping away he's liable to lose his rag and start ranting. LOL

Oh, and Clegg has the prettiest wife. It shouldn't matter but it does. Miriam González Durántez from Valladolid, Castilla y León, Spain, is the daughter of José Antonio González Caviedes, former mayor of Olmedo (Valladolid. Spain) and member of the Spanish Senate representing the Partido Popular. She'd look decorative standing outside Downing Street and, as a foreigner, annoy the Little Englanders in a satisfactory manner.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...7-_654799a.jpg

[Opinionated]

Oh, and Clegg has the prettiest wife. It shouldn't matter but it does. Miriam González Durántez from Valladolid, Castilla y León, Spain, is the daughter of José Antonio González Caviedes, former mayor of Olmedo (Valladolid. Spain) and member of the Spanish Senate representing the Partido Popular. She'd look decorative standing outside Downing Street and, as a foreigner, annoy the Little Englanders

She's a bit toothy for my tastes, SamCam (yuck and yet I can't help myself) was very attractive in her youth (in that sort of Liz Hurley, posh totty does punk way) but age doesn't seem to be perfecting anything, who wants a Carla Bruni anyway (don't answer that on the grounds it may incriminate you)? However what I love about Ms Durántez is the fact that she looks incredulous at the idea that anyone would even consider her a factor in deciding to vote for her husband, a kind of 'I have my own job, friends and children to worry about let him worry about his, we get together when we can that's fine' attitude.
However I can see where this tangent might lead so I shall get in first with the very odd lust fest. I always thought Cameron was the obvious dish (all face and no substance - but a girl can work with that) and I can see why Sarah went for Gordon in that big bear with a big brain kind of way; but I have to say I really like the way Clegg's smile reaches his eyes, it's enough to make a girl swoon all the way to the ballot box.

[Balthazar]

Glad to see I've lowered the tone of the thread. btw I was completely wrong about Clegg. I thought Brown/Cameron would just brush him aside. But it fact it makes complete sense. People are utterly fed up with conventional politics, can't vote BNP because no decent person can, so Clegg, with his sudden exposure, is the obvious lightening rod. Simples!

[Expounder]

Glad to see I've lowered the tone of the thread. btw I was completely wrong about Clegg. I thought Brown/Cameron would just brush him aside. But it fact it makes complete sense. People are utterly fed up with conventional politics, can't vote BNP because no decent person can, so Clegg, with his sudden exposure, is the obvious lightening rod. Simples!

The Tories will be fighting on two fronts until May 6th. They will be fearful how much the uncertainty of the Clegg Lib Dem effect will have on the marginals they hope to win. Their fire power until now, almost exclusively directed against Labour, will have to be directed against the Lib Dems in more than equal measure.

They will have to spend valuable news [propaganda] space and resources dissecting and dismissing Lib Dem policies on the economy and Europe and recanvassing with newly compiled anti Lib Dem leaflets in all the marginals.

This is all good news for labour who will be hoping it is not similarly effected by a change in voting patterns where too many votes would be lost by Labour to the Lib Dems. If this Lib Dem surge holds it will depend on which of the two major parties are affected by the greatest loss of votes. Labour and the Lib Dems policies are similar in substance and there is clear blue water between both of these and the Tory policies. The outcome is anyone's guess.

Having said that it is possible that the Clegg factor could fade as there are two more debates to go and while he performed well on the night [an X factor moment] his policies have not yet come under close scrutiny. At the moment Clegg and the Lib Dems are an unknown quantity and will have forced the Tories into spending time and money into rubbishing the Lib Dem policies on a grand scale in order to try and ward off losing votes to the L.D. in vital marginals they thought were in the bag. It's squeaky bum time for Cameron.

[Major Sinic]

My wife and son overheard me saying that it was it was going to be an evening of talking insects, big headed queens, fairy tales, discredited magicians, betrayal, monsters and insincere smiles which disappear in a puff of smoke. So they took me to see 'Alice in Wonderland' in 3D. Brilliant film and so much more plausible than the 'three wise monkeys'.

[DougieG]

It seems everyone simply imprints their own personal views onto the leaders, and decides who won based upon preconceived notions. Objectively, though, Clegg won because he scored an enormous poll increase as a result of the debate. Some polls are even putting him in the lead...

[Expounder]

My wife and son overheard me saying that it was it was going to be an evening of talking insects, big headed queens, fairy tales, discredited magicians, betrayal, monsters and insincere smiles which disappear in a puff of smoke. So they took me to see 'Alice in Wonderland' in 3D. Brilliant film and so much more plausible than the 'three wise monkeys'.

I agree with you for once Major, the whole lot was a load of regurgitated waffle, the public have been watching too much of the X factor and treated the debate in the same vein and they all have a vote.

The whole point is Clegg and the Lib Dems have no national governmental history, and have entered the debate with a "clean sheet". The Tories and Labour debated under the cloud of past governments so Clegg couldn't help coming out with a clean pair of hands. But because of this, a major upset could be on the cards as the Lib Dems in many "undecided voters" minds are now the wild card. Who knows where this could go?.

[UncleVanya]

This Labour administration under Brown, is heading the same way that the last Labour administration of James Callaghan did. Into the obscurity of the Back Benches. They might even come third after the Lib-Dems. Now, if that did occur, that would be history in the making. As it is, History may just repeat itself as per 1979.

If Labour are defeated, a likely outcome, then would Mr Brown continue as party leader on the oppostition benches? Maybe, mabye not. But as things as they are at the moment, nothing is set in tablets of stone, and it will be the results of the actual day, May the 6th, that will break Labour, or not. At the moment, Bookies are giving short odds on the Torys to win and form the next government.

So, let round 2 commence on Thursday 22nd. I shan't watch it, but will wait and see what the politcal pundits make of it after their analysis of how the party leaders perform.

[JacquesMagique]

I find it incredible how Labour can come third in terms of popular vote and still secure the largest number of seats. We need Proportional Representation.

[Expounder]

This Labour administration under Brown, is heading the same way that the last Labour administration of James Callaghan did. Into the obscurity of the Back Benches. They might even come third after the Lib-Dems. Now, if that did occur, that would be history in the making. As it is, History may just repeat itself as per 1979.

If Labour are defeated, a likely outcome, then would Mr Brown continue as party leader on the oppostition benches? Maybe, mabye not. But as things as they are at the moment, nothing is set in tablets of stone, and it will be the results of the actual day, May the 6th, that will break Labour, or not. At the moment, Bookies are giving short odds on the Torys to win and form the next government.

So, let round 2 commence on Thursday 22nd. I shan't watch it, but will wait and see what the politcal pundits make of it after their analysis of how the party leaders perform.

This is no 1979, conditions are totally different, there's a choice between the two main parties of successful outcome of the recession with labour, or mass unemployment with the Tories.

Your analysis is wishful thinking, the one thing that has held steady is the Labour core vote in the polls and that is mainly in the north of England although in the south there are also many constituencies with a strong labour core vote. The immediate effect of Cleggs X factor performance in the three way debate was a drastic drop of Tory support in the polls.

While labour was also effected albeit to a much smaller degree it would indicate it's core and periphery support is more deeply rooted among it's voters because of historical reasons. Many are still alive who would no circumstances vote Tory, and would remain loyal to labour to keep the Tories out.

Among the professionals and some working class voters prepared to hold their noses and vote Tory many who do so as a protest against various aspects of labour policies and because of their dislike of Brown, not because they give approval to Tory policies. Up until the debate The Lib Dems were regarded a static force marking time in the political arena, for reasons no one can clearly explain, the debate seems to have altered this view. Clegg seems to have connected to a swathe of undecided voters also giving the opportunity those who were reluctantly going to vote for Cameron an alternative to the Tories.

The labour polling core poll figures have held steady through every government crisis and have have been increased the nearer we approached the election. The ones who for their own reasons voted labour before but could not bring them selves to vote for them this time round but don't trust the Tories, have a band wagon to jump on with the apparent surge in favour of the Lib Dems who they think they can support with a clear conscience. Cameron's hopeful Tory/labour marginals could be only a hope.

This is just my own analysis of the state of play at this period in time not a prediction of a hung parliament, although this seems the more likely outcome at the moment.

[Expounder]

I find it incredible how Labour can come third in terms of popular vote and still secure the largest number of seats. We need Proportional Representation.

I agree JM, but the only party which now opposes a reform in the parliamentary voting system is the Tory party. You may say labour is a late convert to the idea but as the saying goes "better late than never" or never look a gift horse in the mouth [whatever that means].http://www.politic.co.uk/images/icons/happy.gif

[JacquesMagique]

I agree JM, but the only party which now opposes a reform in the parliamentary voting system is the Tory party. You may say labour is a late convert to the idea but as the saying goes "better late than never" or never look a gift horse in the mouth [whatever that means].http://www.politic.co.uk/images/icons/happy.gif

You can't surely see it as more than an election ploy though surely? The only reason they want to do it now is to get lib dem support, and because AV+ would actually be even better for labour than fptp?

[Midas]

I agree JM, but the only party which now opposes a reform in the parliamentary voting system is the Tory party. You may say labour is a late convert to the idea but as the saying goes "better late than never" or never look a gift horse in the mouth [whatever that means].http://www.politic.co.uk/images/icons/happy.gif

Surely Labour's late conversion is indeed a voting tactic because they don't support true proportional respresentation but a form of the alternative vote system, which can actually be even less democratic than first past the post and could disproportionately benefit them as the party in power.

[DTE]

You can't surely see it as more than an election ploy though surely? The only reason they want to do it now is to get lib dem support, and because AV+ would actually be even better for labour than fptp?

Yeah exactly. I'm no fan of AV+ either, just seems like a halfway house between fptp and true democracy. Water down everyone's votes so that people can get elected as the 2nd and 3rd choices of most of the electorate. Labour have had 13 years to introduce this, and they wait till now?! Cynical electioneering.

[Expounder]

You can't surely see it as more than an election ploy though surely? The only reason they want to do it now is to get lib dem support, and because AV+ would actually be even better for labour than fptp?

Faced with a refusal by the Tories to support any kind of P.R. I would quote the old adage "half a loaf is better than none as far as the Lib Dems are concerned. Mind you if their surge translated into 100+ seats they may be in a position to force the full P.R. issue as a condition of accepting a coalition with labour as the Tories so far will have none of it. Except that is, if Cameron was so desperate become PM, does, what he has all through the campaign, change his mind and sell his anti P.R. principles to become PM.

Mind you I can't see this scenario as the policies of the Lib Dems and the Tories are like oil and water almost diametrically opposed. It's more likely to be a Lib/Lab pact as their policies on the economy are more in tune, or, face another election which I doubt strongly the Lib Dems would want as they would relish the opportunity of shared power after all these years in the wilderness.

I would add that as long as the Tories are kept out of office I would be quite willing to see a Lib Dem pact and some of their policies adopted.