Admitidly this is according to the Labour Party, but they say that people have been joining them in record numbers over the past couple of days.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that people who voted Lib Dem in an effort to keep the Tories out of Government would be put off from ever voting Lib Dem again, along with those people who voted Lib Dem in very safe Labour seats by way of a protest vote but would have voted Labour if it had been a marginal might be swayed from ever voting Lib Dem again.

Not to mention those party activists who definitely sit to the left of the party rather than the right, it seems safe to assume that at least some of them wouldn't be too happy.

It also seems much more difficult now for the Lib Dems to sell themselves a real third party alternative, now they are much more the extension of one of the main parties.

I would have thought that Liberal voters would be very happy - as they've got a Liberal government. There is absolutely nothing conservative about Cameron or this government.
A Tory led government is proposing to scrap the House of Lords, and bring in fixed term parliaments (a very republican measure) which will mean we create 5 year elected dictatorships with no hope of ever getting rid of poor governments - it also takes away the Queen's prerogative.

Google - contract for equality Tories - and tell me what is 'right' wing or conservative about that.

This is a left wing government - it might not be socialist but then neither was the last one. The only change we've had is in the colour of the party governing.

If you are a liberal, I would have thought you'd be dancing in the streets. It's those that voted Conservative or believe in more conservative principles that should be upset / concerned.

Also - to counter Sally's point on CGT - not everyone that has a second property etc. is out on some greed fest - most people I know that have done that have done is so they can be self-sufficient in retirement - given Brown taxed the pension funds, interest rates are next to nothing. So as ever - if you try and provide for yourself and not want to rely on the state - you are penalised. (I don't own 2 properties for the record.)

For most people from my generation though, getting one property is a pipedream never mind two, there is no way we can be self-sufficient in retirement - we will still be having to pay rent out of our pensions unless we can qualify for housing benefit to help. If you are fortunate enough to be able to inherit property, then you have the capital available to buy property and can take advantage of the capital gains, but if you aren't from a rich family you have virtually no chance of ever getting on if you are unmarried because you only have one income and house prices are just too far ahead of incomes.

According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the median income is about a net income (after income and council tax) of £265 a week, ie £13780 a year. 50% of the population has a lower income than that and 50% has a higher income. If you're in the 50% of the population with an income below that, its very difficult to get on the housing ladder and get a mortgage plus contribute to a pension plan which would take £25-30 a week out of that income, so you just get stuck renting and can never hope to profit from the gains in the property market which richer people seem to think everybody gets.

It gets patronising when people start talking about those on benefits and pensioners on state pensions as people who didn't "do the right thing" as though they've lived a life of being spendthrifts, most of them have been doing the right thing trying to feed their kids and there was never anything left over for anything else. When the lucky ones have gained so extravagantly from booming property prices its only right that we start to focus efforts on those without, otherwise the reality we will see in about 30 years is a large proportion of the retired population homeless and sat on the streets begging like you get in Third World countries, because they'll have had a life of working hard for little reward and have neither property nor significant pension at the end of it.

I didn't refer to people on benefits or pensions as having not done the right thing and nowhere did I infer it. I was pointing out that the system in this country penalises people for trying to look after themselves - people that didn't get into debt / saved money are now penalised by a low interest rate. With pensioners being the hardest hit. And I agree the ticking time bomb of an ageing population is there which is why we shouldn't penalise those people that are able to try and provide for themselves to leave those that as you rightly say haven't had the means to do so.

No problem - thanks for clarifying.

So 18 months on....

....the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

dont matter whos got their legs in at number 10 our lives wont fair any better....glad i did`nt vote lifes too short to give these cretins a minute of my time..

I don't like saying this but I told you so, the tories always rob the working class!

Since June 2010 the economy has got worse not better.

In June 2010 the unemployment rate was 7.8% of the working age population, now its 8.1%, which is the highest its been since 1996 (the last year of the last Tory government). Youth unemployment is now the highest its been since 1992 (the last time the Tories won an election outright). The Tories made a big issue of youth unemployment at the last election, saying it was Labour's legacy of failure for the young people, this has dropped off the Tory agenda now that they are seeing it is going up.

In June 2010 inflation was 3.2%, now its 5.2%, which is the highest its been since 1991. Compare that to earnings growth which is 2.8% which means average real incomes have fallen about 2.3% in the past year.

In the year up to June 2010 the economy grew 2.2%. In the past year it has grown 0.5%, despite George Osborne titling his Budget this year as "A budget for growth".

As regards progress on deficit reduction, in the financial year to date expenditure is 2.9% higher than it was at this point last year (although taking into consideration inflation of 5.2% that is a cut in real terms). But tax revenues are 4.9% higher than they were at this point last year, so there has been some closing of the primary deficit. Tax receipts have risen despite there being fewer taxpayers and more benefit claimants, the reason it's higher is because of the rise in VAT and also the top 50% tax rate which Alastair Darling brought in but has mainly been collected by a Tory government. A lot of Osborne's Tory chums have been lobbying the press to cut that 50% tax rate saying it loses money for the exchequer because all the rich leave for Switzerland etc but Osborne has been reticent on actually cutting it because he knows that it is bringing revenue in.

The Coalition government have taken the UK government backwards and they haven't got a convincing plan to move forwards. All George Osborne clings to is saying that the yield on UK government bonds (ie the interest rate at which the government can borrow) has fallen, which it has, but the interest rate on bonds also reflects market expectations as to interest rates in the economy, when they expect interest rates to be low for the long term then 5 year and 10 year bond yields will drop. They are going to be low because there is no expectation that the Bank of England will put them up to try and deflate a boom. If the economy was looking healthier then these rates would go up. So Osborne is claiming a success for something that is just a reflection of the fact international markets have written off the UK economy as being in the doldrums for a while ahead.

I am not saying things would be great had Labour won the last election but a hard analysis of the facts are that the economy has slipped slightly backwards since the Coalition has taken over.

In rugby league terms its like Mick Potter replacing Steve McNamara at Bradford. There is no noticeable improvement, but if Potter blamed Steve McNamara every time Bradford lost it would start wearing thin after a while, and that's what the Coalition are doing.

Was an excellent election for Labour to lose.

The Lib Dems are finished as an even barely credible political party at national level.

It's a pity Labour went for the wrong Miliband brother, though.

The most striking thing is that there is no real plan or vision for growth - where should we target investment? Where is the plan to reduce our dependency on rogue states for energy and to ensure that in 20 years time we don't have to have blackouts? Instead we get Chris Huhne blathering on about wind power which doesn't produce enough electricity to power the light bulb in my front room.

Which industries are we looking to build to help us in the future?

Outside of Cameron's bizarre pet project of reducing the train times from London to Birmingham by 5 minutes, I've yet to see any coherent plan at all or ideas being put forward. If we're building new railways - let's bring back a few branch lines not something which will actually mean Birmingham is worse off as it will just become another commuter zone into London and the SE.

There is no clear vision (from any party) of where the country or the economy should be heading.

Basically it's all pretty depressing!! My main hope is that the Tory backbenchers grow a pair and actually break way from the Tory party (a la SDP) and that we then might get some break up in the liberal consensus that currently dominates British politics. I'm not sure Labour would last much longer on the back of that as they're just as split with the likes of Frank Field would have more in common with the breakaway Tories and the Millibands and their like can join their rich liberal chums in Cameron and Clegg.

We might actually get some choices in an election then rather than different coloured rosettes.

If we had that system it would be pretty much like European politics with a large number of parties and you end up with coalitions of a centre-right party needing to pander to some unpleasant right wingers or of a centre-left party needing to keep the Greens onside. Not saying that it's wrong just that it would bring us much more in line with the European norm.

Really in terms of winning an election, dominating the centre-left ground is key as that is where the British electorate is. Margaret Thatcher won three elections on 40-42% of the vote, with about 52-56% voting for Labour and the SDP/Liberal Alliance but the Alliance had a big share back then (23-25% or so) and so it split the vote. But when Blair established Labour in that ground he won three elections quite comfortably. There is the chance for that now as the Lib Dem vote will shrink in 2015, it just depends on where those votes go. If they go off to the Greens then the Tories might sneak a small overall majority. If they go to Labour then Labour will win because switching Lib Dem votes over to Labour in a lot of seats knocks out Tory MPs. I think with David Miliband Labour would have no problems winning in 2015 but they will find it tough with Ed who just doesn't seem cut out for the job. He might fall just short like Kinnock in 92.