It was the first of the leaders TV debates I'd managed to catch in its entirety, so was looking forward to seeing how they performed.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I live in a constituency where the sitting Labour MP has a massive majority, meaning there is little point in voting at all, I was quite impressed with Rubberband. He had the Balls (sorry, Ed) to insist that the last Labour government was not responsible for the state of the UK economy, and I believe he is right. It was a GLOBAL economic downturn, after all.

As LeinadT and Clegg said, Cameron and Rubberband both think they will get a majority - or both have to give that impression. Wrong, in my book. Surely, if you are one of these two, you have to say to the electorate "We won't get a majority unless you come out and vote for us" and then push your manifesto, your agenda, your policies.

-1 to Clegg for insisting the SNP are still led by Salmond.

And speaking of the SNP, how can Sturgeon portray herself as someone who will fight for what is right for the whole UK when her party's raison d'etre is the breakup of the UK and an independent Scotland, something which the Scottish electorate itself already rejected on a massive turnout?

At least election night will be interesting, even if politics and politicians still aren't.

Re the SNP position. Whilst Scotland remains part of uk it has a massive interest in helping it succeed. To suggest they want to ruin UK so that part of it could then leave is crazy.

I think Milliband went too far in ruling out SNP support, even saying he'd stay out of power rather than share it with democratically elected MPs from Scotland. We could now see another election within a year if only viable govt would have been labour + SNP. Next election will see UKIP starting in second place in maybe 50 constituencies.

There will be no formal Labour/SNP coalition, but if Miliband is ruling out any deals with them he is frankly an idiot. I don't believe he is an idiot, and suspect he was simply lying. If Labour form a minority government deals with the SNP will be made, just not by Miliband directly and we won't be told about them for a decade or so.

Poor old Sturgeon. If she had joined Labour instead of arsing about with this SNP nonsense she'd be currently leading the country to a clear Labour majority and preparing to introduce a federal system in which Scotland get to do whatever they like. She must be kicking herself :p.

"Next election will see UKIP starting in second place in maybe 50 constituencies."

I smell another bet coming on :p

Politician lying? Never!

But yeah, I agree, they mathematically need their support. When I add up the projected seat totals of Labour and parties that I suspect will support a Miliband government, it falls short of a majority without the SNP. Even when I throw in the Lib Dems, although with the uncertainty of the forecasts that could still do it. In my opinion that's a mistake on his part.

If I was him, I would've not ruled out an agreement between them, and both maintain an anti-independence stance on Scotland, but voice support for more Scottish autonomy. Why? Because for Labour, Scotland is a bunch of battleground constituencies that could go either Miliband or Sturgeon's way, and an intentionally friendly stance to Scottish voters could be felt at Westminster.

For me, UKIP will gain seats in next election (which I'll predict will happen before the maximum 5 years is done--i.e. there will be little stability) if there is no EU referendum. Especially if it's a Conservative government. If the Tories get power and go back on that promise, holy crap, the country will be dotted with purple, and will have much less blue.

@Octavious
"Poor old Sturgeon."
Not so much of the "old"!
England, English politicians, Tory politicians in particular, have done grave damage to the Union by seeking to undermine the legitimacy of a prospective collaboration between Scottish MPs and MPs from the rest of the UK. It has given strength to the notion that Scottish votes are regarded as of inferior value and that Scotland is a junior partner in the Union.
Unionists should take the lessons from 1991. The USSR broke up, not when Latvia (etc) wanted out, but when Russia opted out. This election has moved a similar scenario closer in the UK.

@Thomas, I was about to contest that, but I presumed the ":p" meant it was tongue-in-cheek. Sturgeon is First Minister of Scotland, and leader of what is most likely soon to be the 3rd biggest party in the UK. No small feat at all. I think she's happy she chose SNP over Labour.

I suspect Miliband isn't lying, and I speak as their opponents. I suspect he is going banking on both Tories and labour getting 270/280 each. Tory attempts to present Queen's speech will fail as it will be voted down by lab/SNP. Labour will present a queens speech than SNP won't vote against so Tories either have to abstain or vote against, if they vote against we have another election, if they abstain Labour rule with around 33% of vote and no one wanting to bring them down.

To any Tories out there, would you vote against labour and force another election? Do you think you'd do better in a second election with Boris or May?

@LeinadT

There is nothing I am surer of in politics than there being a European referendum if Cameron becomes PM. It is as close to a certainty as you'll ever get. We could see the end of UKIP if Farage fails to get elected, but we shall see...

@ Thomas

Scottish votes have always had more influence than English votes. Despite being the far smaller country the Scottish population have got the government they voted for just as often as the English population. I don't really follow what you're talking about

@Octavious

True, I agree, but hypothetical scenarios are a hobby of mine. It's fascinating to consider that it would benefit UKIP if the Tories won power and--counter-intuitively--did *not* allow an EU referendum to take place.

It's similar to the idea that Labour will benefit this election by the Lib Dems choosing the Conservatives over attempting to form a government with them in 2010 because of the swing vote of Lib Dem voters who much prefer Labour to the Tories (the polls back this up, by the way).

Yeah, but it's less similar in the sense that it could never actually happen :p. I like to keep my hypotheticals plausible. A conservative majority is plausible, but unlikely. The British public voting to leave the EU is plausible but unlikely. A Conservative PM going back on the referendum promise that they have made the central column of their credibility ain't going to happen. It would be up there with Labour privatising the entire NHS

@Octavious - I think you're wrong there - when Labour have won, they've won in E&W as well as Scotland. I think (and would need to refind the data) that there is only one time when Scotland has been needed to deliver a government that E&W didn't vote for.

Of course, there have been plenty of recent examples when Scotland didn't get the national government it voted for

I still don't know quite why Cameron thinks that the UK is in any position to renegotiate and get a better deal.

@Octavious: except labour might be able to disguise the 'privatisation' of the NHS in legal/financial jargon... Building something like Obamacare - they would be entirely private health insurance, but it looks like socialism to some...

It is much harder to change your mind on something as clear as an EU exit referendum.

@ Ora

I was meaning the whole lot. In terms of piecemeal privatisation by the back door I agree that Labour are more likely culprits than the Tories, who are terrified by public opinion on the matter. In terms of mass privatisation of the NHS the Tories are more likely to want it, but would need to win the debate with the public first. I can't see that happening for decades, if at all.

Also, the conservative campaign seems to be based on repeating things that aren't real.

@ mendac

@ mendax

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/juncker-tells-cameron-i-will-renegotiate-uk-membership-301718

Right, and freedom of movement is clearly there as a red line. So given that this is largely being driven by fears about immigration, the renegotiation is not going to achieve very much at all.

More recently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32504026

Again, freedom of movement, the main driving force for this domestically, has been completely ruled out.

The fundamental freedom of movement rule was never a target. That it is talked about at all is mostly because of UKIP and Labour saying "you can't end freedom of movement". What you can do is negotiate in areas regarding the UK's duty to EU immigrants in terms of housing, tax credits etc. What might be possible is to introduce limits to smooth out any temporary spikes in migration levels.

But was is certain, from those links and many similar stories, is that meaningful renegotiation over a wide range of issues is very much a reality.