He's made the right calls there, to be fair. The SNP can't sit there and vote against a labour minority government without getting the "you're enabling the Tories", which would kill them. I reckon ed has played this one well.

That was Murdoch's call, after Lynton Crosby's tactics of making Ed look weak were falling flat.

Clegg may not have ruled out joining a referendum coalition (though he fucking should, given what the party is about), but he has ruled out joining one that features UKIP, IIRC.

You're not wrong on this bit but the result is still lose/lose as far as I can see. Ed is banking hard, in that case, on having a minority with more seats than the Conservatives, which doesn't seem likely from the current polls, and has more or less given up on saving any Labour seats in Scotland.

The more likely result is that Cameron will have at least 10-15 seats more than Ed, giving him the mandate to try to set up a government first. A formal coalition with the remnants of the Lib Dems and an informal understanding with UKIP will probably give it enough strength to form as a minority. One thing Clegg does seem firm about is that the party with the most seats has the clearer mandate to govern, so there would need to be very strong barriers against partnering with them and I don't think they exist.

The gap is going to count though and I'm not certain how this will play out. Lets say the Tories get 280 and the Lib Dems 27. That makes 307 and is 19 shy of a majority, even if you throw 3-4 UKIP in.

Meanwhile Labour get 270 and the SNP 47. That makes 317 - still short but the bigger number. Let's say Plaid throw their weight behind them - still only 320.

This is where it gets a bit tricky and really problematic for the country. Surely the Tories have the bigger mandate (by simple virtue of more seats), but can't get the numbers together. Neither can Labour but their number is bigger BUT they don't have as many seats as the Tories by themselves. A ConLib would be formal, and at best a Labour minority would be a 'vague understanding' of support from the SNP - hardly conclusive. Then Ed would be utterly dogged by the constant accusation of being held up by the horrible Nationalists.

As with most things, a 50/50 split is generally terrible as even the party arguing they have 51% is operating on a knife edge. All in the result is totally uncertain and looks to be a fucking nightmare either way.

Personally I'm looking for a 1992-esque late swing to the blues, because it seems at least possible and offers the best chance for stability.

Do you think the Lib Dems would refuse to enable a minority Labour government?

From the interviews I have seen, Clegg seemed pretty happy to form a coalition with either.

I would expect Lab/SNP/LD to have easily enough seats to enable a minority Labour government.

There is, of course, a potential incumbent late swing, but you never know, the classic Shy Tory might have morphed into a Shy Kipper

Labour and the Tories should form a new coalition and try and resolves as many issues between them as possible. Lib Dems could be arbitrators. That'd be lovely to see.

I don't think they'd refuse but they'd give the Tories the first crack at the attempt and I think in that Clegg is sincere.

Trouble is even a formal LabLib is still short, so it's all still informal understandings in the best case, Ed is still dogged by being held up by the SNP.

Really Cameron has shot himself in the foot by trying to dismiss UKIP as fruitcakes early on. They should have come to an understanding long ago not to contest in even slightly marginal seats. If there's any Tory swing to UKIP that'll just dilute the vote and win Labour more seats. Given the broad political overlap you have to assume that UKIP are more inclined towards the Tories rather than Labour, so to the extend of my view the whole situation has been badly fucked up.

The bottom line is that I'm not confident in what'll happen next either way. I think Kern had it right when he reckoned 18 months before another GE after the country's had enough of a weak parliament.

When you sum together the votes of Tory and UKIP voters, it's clear that in England at least, the Right holds sway. So my prediction remains that when push comes to shove, UKIPs will melt away and tactically vote Tory, especially given Cameron's increasingly Euroskeptic stance as against the spectre of the SNP holding sway which is most peoples nightmare scenario.

Ironically, the Scots will ensure the Tories win through, with their en masse swing to the SNP and final abandonment of Labour.

At this rate I'll end up flinging my pointless vote at the Lib Dem candidate, or maybe I'll just hold true despite it not affecting anything. I don't think I can bring myself to vote SNP even for tactical reasons.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I could, in extreme circumstances, vote Labour if that meant keeping the SNP out. But, vote SNP tactically, even if it meant getting the Tories in? I just couldn't bring myself to do it; for me, it'd make a mockery of my hard won vote that people have shed blood to achieve.

Tactical voting is a cynical business on any level, but sometimes the means outweigh the objective and, like you Gnomes, there are depths I just couldn't plumb.

Quite a few people believe this but I just don't see it myself? For me, such a rainbow coalition would be governance by hamstrung committee at its very worst; a rudderless, ideology free mish mash of confused, counterproductive policies, as delivered by a government with the Sword of Damocles ever poised over it. Fine in wartime where overriding objectives are clear, perhaps, but surely not at other times.

Russell 'Don't vote' Brand has come out to support Labour. Or the Greens depending on where you live. This was the man that called on people to bring about non-specific political revolution to change the system. His slurring nonsense isn't replacing the real news any time soon. 'ARGLE BARGLE ZERO HOUR CONTRWACTS, FOOD BANKS INNIT' ad naseum.

Here you go, if anyone wants to watch it.

To be honest, I'm not remotely concerned about what he thinks I should do with my votey-wotey.

According to tabloid headlines I noted whilst buying petrol the other day, the man wants to be PM. Bless.
Personally, I always think he looks like he needs a good bath.

I suffered through it and can only conclude he's a bumbling simpleton with a parochial understanding of politics. He's become overly excited that a real politician has given him the time of day with Ed being clearly uncomfortable at the bizarro ranting. He's gone from renouncing the system to being utterly convinced that Labour are the ones to vote for. After the deadline to register has passed. 'Trewsers', christ.

It should be terrifyingly noted that he has more than double the number of twitter followers than the three main party leaders combined. Whether that translates into empty minded followers willing to do his bidding is another matter.

Well, I'm not sure one can equate Twitter followers with potential voters, but there again, what do I know about modern media? Much of the Scottish Indyref was conducted on Twitter and, as much as I personally find it incredulous that such importance could be placed on a medium offering no more than 140 characters per "tweet", others clearly disagree.

My suspicion would be that most of these people are love-struck teenagers, but some people do appear to take him seriously on an intellectual and political level, as his recent QT appearance amply demonstrated.

I like Russell Brand, he's not perfect but I honestly believe his heart is in it and that he's a 'conviction' person, to put it in the old parlance. I suspect that's why he appeals to people more than political leaders who change their spots with every day that passes and depending on who they're talking to at any given time.

His stuff about drugs is really good too.

To be fair, I do think his heart is in the right place from what I've seen; I'm not so cynical as to believe he's doing it only to raise his public profile or whatever. But I question whether he has the intellectual horsepower for it.

Edit: On the drugs side of things, I guess it's like anything else. If you have real world, hands-on experience with something, then it's all to the good - I'm sure he is able to speak with authority (and I am NOT trying to be snide or funny about this point). Fundamentally, this is why I lament the advent of the "career politician", of which both Miliband and Cameron are. They've never had real jobs, less still run a business, so what makes them think they're ably equipped to run the country? Being able to out-snark others within the rarefied public schoolboy environs of PMQs?

Also note that if you tell your legions of fans not to vote, then change your mind after the voter registration deadline, well that's something of a problem.

Well, yes, there is that.
I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my earlier comment regarding intellectual horsepower...

It's a problem insofar as getting those people to vote is concerned, but in terms of Brand deciding that it's worth re-engaging with the electoral process, however flawed it may be - not a bad thing.

(For the record his 'DON'T VOTE' stance was something I fundamentally disagreed with so I'm glad to see him reappraise his stance. Albeit rather too late for this election.)

Voting and being registered to vote are two different things. Although obviously if you ain't registered then you're buggered.

It may well be a good thing that he's belatedly telling his fans to vote, now, but I mean come on. It's pretty fundamental as U-turns go, and all off the back of an assumed epiphany after a quick (much publicised) chat with Ed...? I think people are entitled to think that's rather shallow, and perhaps it might've been better all round, and less damaging to the engagement of young, impressionable people with our democracy, not to go irresponsibly spouting such rubbish in the first place?

Of course, it also calls his convictions into question about all the other stuff he's been saying as well IMO; credibility and all that. Too much ill conceived, ill thought out, simplistic, headline-grabbing, knee-jerk shite around as it is.

If you ain't been following him and what he's been doing in the community, on his podcasts, YouTube and even his recent film thing then it's not unexpected that you're entirely wrong with your opinion.

Sure, that's quite possible (and indeed, is definitely the case in any kind of detail), but for me at least, the salient points seem clear enough. Honestly, though, I don't really care either way; the man's a buffoon politically speaking, in my opinion.

Normally coming from the Tories, aye? AMIRITE.

Sure, that's one POV.

To be fair Cavey he has been at this for a while now, and whilst he may be a 'buffoon' politically speaking (he certainly isn't a career politician so doesn't behave with the slippery guile that they do), he's most certainly not an idiot either.

He's an interesting character and and he believes in what he's doing, that conviction alone gets him my 'vote' as it were.

There certainly isn't any money in what he's doing with all this stuff, and whilst you could argue he's already made his money so doesn't need any more, it's definitely a change of pace from a lot of the millionaire media types.

As ever Cavey is far too much of the gentleman, and any concession he gives to the opposing view is just immediately picked up to thwack him with.

I'm much less nice, so I'll just go on the record to that that Brand is so obviously a transient flip-flopper of political opinion and anyone who believes otherwise is either hugely naive or utterly blinded by the fact they 'dun fink he's such a funny guy that he must know what he's on about.

I mean, did anyone really think his 'Don't vote' stance was based on years of careful study, analysis, and introspection about the state of UK politics and the various options afforded to the UK public come election time? His anti-establishment rhetoric was so vague, non-specific and clearly ill-informed. His stance seems to have too easily changed from the rejection of everything, to the endorsement of that bloke what seemed nice when he done come met him, and the castigation of that other bloke what did called him a joke.

Then his supporters turn around and say how brave he is for changing his opinion and it must necessary be because of the objective and absolute truth of his assessment. The man is just a jumble of socialist platitudes of no substance.

I mean seriously, come the fuck on. He's just a person as fallible as anyone else, and his notoriety and subjectively-entertaining comedy confers no particular insight into a field that he clearly has no real experience with. Even if he did, the believability of anything he said would be called into question (as per every other political figure) were he not otherwise famous for something else. I honestly believe that had Cameron gone to met him with with same bumbling humility as Ed, today's proclamation might be the absolute opposite. With this prancing changeable fool, you just can't really know for sure.

Yup, nailed it there, didn't ya. You're totally right with your black and white simplistic view of someone's inner brain workings who you have no interest in.

As Cavey said, given what people know of Brand to this sudden event and the sudden changing of his mind, you would be easily forgiven for being sceptical. And easily judged for just accepting it without a second thought.

If I wrote a book on politics, did a film on politics, talked about politics once or twice a week on a podcast, did a video 5 days each week on politics, campaigned for rights of others and got involved in causes I cared about as being injustices due to politics, I'd probably form a view on politics. Especially if there was an election.

His book on politics... Judging from the reviews the 5 stars are from starry-eyed fans that already loved him, and the significant 1-stars are people being assessing it in terms of whether it's a worthy book about politics, which it seemingly isn't. I'd consider giving it a read to see for myself if it wasn't done written like what he speaks innit.

He's clearly the kind of figure the left love and the right find fucking insufferable.

Yeah, I've never read it.



Reader reviews are funny, aren't they?



Oh, you've read it?



Oh right.



I can't trust anyone's views when they don't speak proper either. Kids who speak that black rap slang ought be shot.



Cause he's is a socialist? Yeah, funny that.

Le sigh. My post was self-evidently honest in that I hadn't read it, but naturally you would try to jump on that anyway to make a non-point to counter something I wasn't saying. I said 'seemingly' precisely because I hadn't read it, and then said so. I couldn't read it because I require proper fucking grammar to be able to tolerate something that professes to be an intellectual read and I'm sorry if that standard offends you.

I realise you love the guy but you're going to have to accept that other's think he's an idiotic twat with nothing of interest to say.

Le post. I don't love his stand-up which, frankly, is terrible and isn't great if your livelihood is as a comedian.

I accept that other's here find you an idiotic twat with nothing of interest to say but I love you.

I bet you do, you saucy beggar.

Yeah, you'd get it. Fnaar fnaar.

I bet you'd ram your vote right in my ballot box wouldn't you?

"I, err, and there we must leave R4's Critic's Forum...."

Living with Galloway.

I think I will be bitterly disappointed if he were to get in again.

I see that The Independent signed its own death warrant.

How so?

Owner apparently has dictated editorial policy to support Tories based on Labour wanting to abolish non-dom status, with him being a non-dom.

Bias and self-interest? In the media? My god.

Aye, but that was supposed to be the entire point of the Independent newspaper. Readership are less than happy, ditto many of their journalists.

Call me a crazy, mixed up kid - but is there any possibility that they might've genuinely reached such a conclusion, as based on empirical performance?

From what I've skim read so far, seems pretty much fair comment, with plenty of detracting heavy caveats and suchlike. Certainly, a very cautious endorsement.

It's been something of a misnomer for at least a decade, hasn't it?

I can't imagine having my voting intention led by the newspaper I read, but I suppose many others are which is why they bother. Odd.

Well, the owner and editor are buddies with Cameron, and stand to have to pay tax under a non-Tory government, so that might have swayed them a little from being 'Independent'. It's not a secret that the owner wishes to be the next Rupert Murdoch.

Obviously, wishing that will make him a natural Tory voter, but is at odds with a large portion of their staff and readership.

Other interesting stuff today is that the most important seat to retain for the Tories is now actually Nick Clegg's! If he loses his seat (he won't) then any Lib/Con coalition or agreement would likely be up in smoke.

The next few weeks will be interesting, for sure.