Ex Lion Tamer

I've been most impressed by what Liz Kendall's had to say so far, but do worry that she isn't "prime ministerial" enough for the electorate

I'm as big a comedy snob as anyone and was expecting to be disappointed but that was hilarious. Good GK-ing!

Voters punished Vince Cable for going in with the Tories by voting in...the Tories. Confusing. Will be very interesting to see the Tories implementing all their promises that they thought they wouldn't have to make because they wouldn't win a majority. Genuinely think it could destroy them after 2020 (I know, ever the optimist). Although we have to get through another 5 years of the Tories and it will be pretty horrendous for the poor, in some ways it could be blessing. I think Miliband would have become very unpopular - now Labour can rebuild with a charismatic leader and win in 2020.

There's more negative things that need to be said about the tories [emoji3]

I agree with most of this, but there's another way of looking at it. People are used to their incomes growing year on year, or at least holding steady, particularly when the economy is healthy. It's very hard to scale down a lifestyle that you're used to. What's actually happened is average wages have been stagnant as a share of GDP since the 1980s, with the proceeds of growth going to the richest. Governments have papered over this problem by making it easier to get into debt rather than addressing the real problem of inequality. Shareholder capitalism is failing people. I'm not really sure what the solution is but it's a huge issue.

That article is over the top and probably misrepresents some facts. The Mirror is a tabloid after all. But some people definitely have died needlessly due the government's cruel benefits sanctions regime

8 million readers online

This article presents a surprisingly strong case for why the tories could do a deal with the SNP http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/06/government-tories-snp-conservatives-nicola-sturgeon

To be fair, your logic is pretty sound

My prediction: Tories ahead by 9 seats. but can't get enough support for Queens speech. Labour forms minority government. Clegg and Cameron both resign. While not easy, government gets surprising amount done, with support of SNP on some bills and tories on others. Of course, I could be very wrong so don't throw this back at me in a month's time!

LD as well informed as ever there

The Indie generally supports the lib dems although the tone of the piece is a little surprising

I thought they have failed to clean up their human rights record and so aren't eligible. It's actually a textbook example of why the EU is good - respect your citizens' human rights or you don't get the economic benefits of joining our club

The Tories has given us the longest fall in wages in the last 150 years

Apparently the BBC is biased but I cant remember when they've made an apology like this from the Times

For the record. I do think a late swing to the tories is still very much on the cards. For all the complaints about the QT audience, labour has not won the economic argument or even really made it properly

First thing is that as the largest party, the Tories will put forward a Queens speech. Lab and SNP will vote it down. That means Labour, as the second largest party, will put forward its own Queen's speech, and dare the SNP to vote it down. The SNP won't because at least its better than the Tories, and they have to be seen to be constructively trying to get the UK to have a working government. Labour therefore becomes a minority government. Then in every subsequent bill, if it doesn't get passed then Labour will blame the SNP. There will be negotiation on a regular basis but no deal as such. I don't think it is going to be easy for Labour at all but its the basis to form a government

Did labour over spend? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32549892

So you can be taxed less while you're alive

I don't begrudge people doing what's in their and their families' interest, it's human nature. But they shouldn't squeal about the government taking a portion to improve society as a whole

They may have paid tax in the past or will in the future, but anyway, giving people just enough to live in a slightly less severe poverty is not the same as passing hundreds of thousands of pounds to your kids

I'm explaining my opinions with detailed arguments

In your opinion

They go on and on about how people are rich because they work hard, and shouldn't be punished with higher tax. (I'd suggest that background, luck ant intelligence plays a big part) But then they want to cut a tax that helps ensure you don't get something for nothing just because your parents are wealthy (in practice priveligrd kids can still get passed down plenty despite losing a portion of it). So apparently wealth isn't just about working hard, it is about upbringing like I said

They can see their hypocrisy but they still don't agree with it? I understand that it's a powerful human instinct to want to pass wealth on to your children. But it's really not good for them or society. Everyone should have to work for their prosperity