Its fairly obvious that they aren't targeting this constituency seriously in any way shape or form, which is strange because the next constituency along is one of theirs and like Mulholland is held by a popular MP who campaigns regularly on local issues.

Here in our constituency the nearest (and a close threat) to Mulholland is the Labour candidate who in the last month has been caught out twice making unsubstantiated derogatory claims about the sitting MP in his campaign literature and has been forced to print two retractions and apologies.

So more of the same or go with a person unfamiliar with the truth and a little research before going to print ?

Is it just me or is this one of the nastiest, most spiteful elections we've had?

I certainly can't remember the likes of the Murdoch mob ganging up on a 17 year-old girl who had the temerity to like Miliband or the vitriolic personal attacks from the Telegraph and other papers on Miliband and Labour generally. I'm sure the left wing press has been as bad, so this isn't a party issue, but unsurprisingly the Mail has scraped the bottom of the barrel with Littlejohn suggesting he'd rather trust Jimmy Savile to babysit his kids than trust Labour.

The Thatcher comment about personal attacks has been very apt this time around. Is it time for the adults to just grow up a bit?

I think it says much about the incumbents, who have been spinning the press and look like the only thing thay've got left is to spend the final days of the election campaign doing nothing more than fearmongering,

and while we're on about the papers, this is what the Scum are now reduced tohttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEP3gltWgAAAv05.png:large" >

No you're right, but then again most of what passes for "debate" in the HoC is nasty and spiteful and owes more to an "us and them over there" attitude than a realisation that you are the 650 most important representatives in the UK and on your decisions stand or fall the well being of 65 million people, their livelihoods, health and general well being, this term of parliament and for the next generation going forward - hence my belief that a removal of the whip would promote more discussion and less bawling and name calling, if your party really want to get a bill through then you're going to have to convince 650 representatives and not just waste an hour shouting as loud as you can at the end of someone else's sentence.

If we do (and the pundits seem to think we will), end up with a minority government, then I think we'll see a different type of debate in parliament.

A government that knows it simply cannot rely on the power of the whips to storm though legislation can only be good for democracy. It should lead to less but better quality legislation. I've no doubt we'll still see the partisanship and braying mobs at PMQs but that's 30 minutes of pantomime once a week.

Yes it's been a dirty campaign but I'm looking forward to just what happens come Friday morning

Another five years of tory rule and how many more of these letters will London boroughs be sending to their tenants?



Social engineering, nothing more or less

So a middle aged / elderly couple whose family has flown the nest is offered £5k to voluntarily leave their five bedroom house, with four unoccupied bedrooms, to make it available as a family home. I'm struggling to see the problem.

Yes because the vast majority of people will be in that situation and have absolutely no problem with relocating 100 miles away from friends and family

I dont think the vast majority of people would take them up on the offer.

[i"No need to contact us if you are not interested...this is just an opportunity and entirely your choice."[/i

Anyway, the Indy came out yesterday and decided they rlcan't even call their own voterl. Astoundingly, they heaped plenty of praise on the coalition and specifically the Tories, and even leaned towards another Tory-Lib Dem coalition as the best outcome, with an increase in Lib Dem influence. Heaps of outrage in the comments section.

They also seem convinced Labour WILL turn to the SNP, which, given their promises throughout the campaign would be entirely unacceptable. I'm not sure this is correct, I think Labour would reach agreement with the Lib Dems regardless of their 'red lines'. Elsewhere, Miliband couldn't explain away the IFS finding that Labour's plans would result in £90B more debt than the Tories over 5 years.

They've also published some interesting charts showing the difference between the rlFPTP and PR voting systems.rl A Tory-UKIP coalition?

Independent - Proprietor: A Lebedev
Evening Standard - as above
Daily Telegraph - Proprietors: Barclay brothers
Daily Mail - Proprietor: Viscount Rothermere
The Times - Proprietor: R Murdoch
The Sun - as above
The Express - Proprietor: R Desmond
The Star - as above

Notwithstanding Leveson and Labour's intention to introduce a truly independent press regulator, all of the above are either 'non-dom' status or have engineered "tax efficiencies" to reduce their contribution to the UK exchequer.

Is anyone really surprised whose mast they are nailing their colours to?

I dont think that Labour will turn to the SNP as such. I think they will present their Queen's Speech and budget and dare the SNP to vote against it or abstain. The trouble is that Sturgeon seems to think that if the SNP vote down a Labour budget, Labour will simply come back with something more acceptable. Because that's how it works in Scotland.

Well, yes, given that they've been condemning and character assassinating Cameron and the Tories (and of course UKIP) for months.

I don't know if you follow their social media feeds, but it's been pretty relentless.

That article represents a comprehensive u-turn in policy.

I disagree.

That article represents Alexander Lebedev fearing for his non-dom status

And there's absolutely no reason to presume that it wouldn't work that way in a UK parliament