I hoped that it would be possible for the next government to be a LibLab coalition. I rather like the Labour party as a whole, and personally I don't think that Brown is such a bad guy, but I recognised that he would have to step down as part of any LibLab pact - as I've been saying for some time now, he's a liability for his party, despite his ability.

But a LibLab coalition would not be only a LibLab coalition - the two parties alone would have given them 315 seats, meaning that at least one, probably two, nationalist parties - Plaid Cymru and the SNP - would have to be brought in. Aside from the obvious national imbalance in favour of Wales and Scotland, that would simply make the whole enterprise too unstable to last.

So, despite my hopes, there really was only one viable option in some sort of Tory/LibDem deal. Like many LibDems, this irks me to say the least. I find the Tory party as a whole an insult to much of what I stand for - removing necessary services for those who need them in favour of tax cuts is my primary reason to despise the Tory party, but treatment of sexual minorities is definitely another topic for contention. I'm going to be starting a secure job in 20 days, and the Torys, despite the attitudes of their party members, wouldn't be able to reverse the fantastic (but admittedly incomplete) job that Labour have done in advancing issues of equality, so in terms of simple self-interest I shouldn't care. But they're still an insult to much of what I stand for. Yet we do have common ground with our foe. And they did gain a large share of the vote. And we do need a government that is stable. So this was the only real option.

I am glad that it is not simply a deal to allow a budget and Queen's speech to pass. We have a full coalition government, most likely with Cabinet seats for a few LibDems, maybe even Clegg as Deputy PM. This means that Tory policies can be tempered with liberal attitudes, blunting the axe that cuts away at lifelines for the needy, perhaps even diverting it. And that has already happened - I gather that the Torys have been very generous with the compromise necessary to make this work.

My thoughts on coalitions and PR

We had no decisive winner in the election, and it took a few more days before a government was formed. The press wanted us to think that there was all this chaos going on, that if it went on any longer then the UK would cease to exist or something, but in reality it was just a few more days. That government won't be able to hold up all of the manifesto pledges of either party, and which pledges stayed or went was negotiated behind closed doors, but I'm okay with that. Yes, I voted for the Liberal Democrats and their manifesto, but compromise and cooperation are important facets in ordinary life. I trust that my party (I really should actually join the party I think) did its best to uphold the core values that the party stand for, and that I believe in, and I'm sure that the Torys did much the same.

A lot of people are afraid of coalitions. They shouldn't be. In other democracies, they are common, yet seem to work just fine. The reason that they seem alien to us is that our electoral system gives parties an easier time getting a 'majority'. But this does not mean that they have a majority, more than 50%, of the votes. Even the Labour landslide in 1997 only garnered 43.2% of the vote - so 56.8% of the voting population did not want a Labour government in 1997. With proportional representation (PR) a government has to have a majority of the votes, which inevitably means coalitions. This does not mean weak government in the slightest. This means compromise and cooperation between 2 or more (but with our current party layout, probably just 2) parties, each keeping their core values and giving way on lower priorities. This means that we don't see big changes if a new party comes to power, we see a more gradual change to the way of life. But most importantly, we see the core values of more than half of the voters brought forward. And that can only be a good thing.

That we have a full Tory/LibDem coalition makes me happy for another reason - this will show those who are against PR because of coalition governments that they can work, that we can still get a strong government through cooperation. That there is nothing to be feared. Between them, they represent 59.1% of voters - more than 15% more votes than Labour's 1997 landslide. How is that not a good thing? When this government's term is up, and we've had 4(?) years of stable, strong government, I predict that there will be a lot of changed opinions on PR, even in Tory ranks. That we have this coalition, despite only getting a referendum on the alternative vote (AV) system, we will make a huge step towards PR in the long-term. And as a result, this election has been a huge win for democracy in our country.

Newsnight's analysis episode

Getting around to watching this a couple of days late, but here are my reactions - which I'm writing whilst watching it as they come to me.

• David Cameron... The thing that strikes me most about him is this:Poor little Cammy-wammy, confused and out of his depth. "What are the other two men saying?" he thinks to himself, "oh, I just don't understand."This picture shows it again - Cameron seems to struggle to understand what is being said to him, whereas Clegg looks calm and composed. I've noticed this in other debates too, but in this debate it was mainly in the economy section. When Brown is listening to the others talk he tends to shake his head. That's a simple way of showing that he doesn't agree with their statements, but he uses it far too much.
• Another point about Cameron: He tries so very hard to dodge questions he almost gets away with it. The two in particular for how far through I am are regarding the £6 billion worth of cuts they want to do this year, and the cut in inheritance tax for the highest earners. Now, its all well and good that he makes his comments about 'only £1 in every £100', but those are efficiency savings. As Brown rightly pointed out, these cuts are coming on top of efficiency savings. These are actual cuts. Cuts will inevitably lead to lost jobs. We heard over the past week that some areas of the UK have nearly 70% of the economy in the public sector - Northern Ireland and Wales in particular. Yes, that's too high, but evening out the balance by reducing the public sector isn't the right way of doing it. That just removes money from the local economy which could be spent in these private companies. And that could very easily lead to a double-dip recession.
• As for inheritance tax, he made a point about how he wants to encourage people to save money that can be passed on to their children and do the right thing, but completely ignored the point that the other two made that the cuts the Tories want to make benefit the richest people in this country. He made no claims that he was raising the threshold of inheritance tax, so his little argument about ordinary people doing the right thing was entirely pointless.
• The issue of the banks. Now, I personally want to see this economy move much more towards highly-skilled manufacturing and science as our main economic outputs. As a country we still cling to our military power for our place in the world, which is something that is out of date ever since World War II, but I won't go into that. The simple fact regarding banking though, is that we are a world leader in this sector. Ignoring the fact that it could be this very issue that got our economy built so very heavily on debt compared to other economies, that doesn't mean that a move towards manufacturing and science has to include a move away from banking. Indeed, implementing the correct infrastructure and the amount of time required for those sectors to develop means that a move away from banking would be unwise in the short term, let alone the long term. It is for this reason that I don't agree with the LibDem policies on this matter - they'll simply push the companies out to another area of the world where they can make more money. It's not like they don't have enough money to do such a thing at the drop of a hat, after all. The Tory plans could very well do the same thing. It is only Labour who really seem to understand this.
• Cameron definitely performed better in this debate, but the other two did well too. Clegg was the only one who actually answered questions from the audience directly on a consistent basis, but he did not do such a good job presenting his policies as he has done in previous debates. Brown performed very, very well in the economy section of this debate - showing that he is the only party leader - and his the only party - that understands the situation properly (specifically between Labour and the Tories - I prefer the general gist of the LibDem economic policy) but not quite as well throughout the rest. I would say that Brown is the only one who seemed Prime Ministerial, despite his failings. But I wouldn't call him the winner, or either of the other two.

I've just finished watching the second debate, and I wanted to give my reactions straight away this time, rather than waiting half a week to comment on it.

Firstly, it was a lot closer this time. But, again, I think that Clegg had a showing that was stronger than the other two - even if by a much smaller margin. That's fine by me. I wanted to see him stand his ground, to not fall back under increased scrutiny and pressure, and he stood it well. A quick look at a few polls mentioned on the tail end of an article by the Independent agree with me - 2 of the polls have Clegg ahead of the other two, and the third one - the YouGov poll for The Sun - as Cameron ahead of Clegg. Frankly, we can begin to disregard the YouGov polls in my opinion - I'm going to have to write a whole post just about News Corp.

Secondly, Cameron made a point about scare-mongering tactics used by Labour a couple of times. But the Tory campaign has two focal points that use exactly those tactics - namely that a hung Parliament would be bad, and that voting for the Lib Dems is a vote for Gordon Brown.

It was amusing to see how the other two had copied ideas from Clegg - looking at the camera directly, commenting on the other two arguing amongst themselves, that sort of thing. I'm glad that Clegg didn't try to distance himself too far from the other two, he applied just the right amount of rhetoric to not overdo it. I particularly liked his opening and closing statements - they were positive messages, uplifting, particularly his closing statement. Running campaigns on messages of hope rather than messages of 'you have to pick me because everything sucks' is the right way of doing things.

Why haven't I mentioned the issues? Because there were no real bombshells. There's nothing really to highlight. We already knew much of what was said today. If you're unsure of the policies that the three parties hold, then the best thing you can do is watch the debate(s) for yourself, rather than read about them from a silly wannabe-blogger. If you want my opinion on whose policies I support, then it probably wouldn't surprise you to know that I like the Liberal Democrat policies - I think we need to engage more with Europe, I think that cutting back on public spending too soon would damage the economy but that cuts do need to be made in the medium-term, I think that a Trident replacement doesn't make sense for a country of our size when the two biggest nuclear problems - Iran and North Korea - not only are not focused on us, but have the USA and the wider global community breathing down their necks.

The only thing I've come across that I don't agree with is the plan to introduce heavier taxes on banks regardless of international support. I like the idea of moving our economy more towards things like highly skilled manufacturing and other industries where we can be a world leader - which requires good science funding, something which the Lib Dems and Labour are both supporting in different amounts but the Tories are planning to cut in a very short-sighted move - but that does not mean that banking has to be pushed away - and deploying such measures without international cooperation would do just that. Other than that, their policies simply make sense to me, which is why I support them.

I'm looking forward to the next debate. It will air at a similar time on the BBC, Thursday the 29th of April. One week after that is the election. So... We are just 2 weeks away.

Last week's debate was the first of three, and focused on domestic issues. This week's will focus on foreign affairs, and is on a Sky channel. I believe said channel is accessible via Freeview, but it should - hopefully - be aired on the BBC late at night, which was the case with last week's, which aired at 11:30pm of the same evening. As a result, it'll be on the iPlayer later on. I'll link it on here and Twitter after the fact.

How do I think the debate went? Well, it was interesting, and I'm glad it took place. I hope we see it in future elections. The clear winner was Clegg - most people are agreed on that. However, he won't be able to rely on the 'I'm the outsider' rhetoric in tomorrow's debate and next week's.

Of the other two, Brown definitely seemed in the stronger position. I've heard a few commentators say that Clegg won on style, Brown on substance, and Cameron lost all round. I'd agree with that except in that Clegg had some good substance to his arguments too.

In my view, Cameron seriously underperformed except for the last two questions - which, lets face it, is the best time to perform better as that helps with the lasting impression. He couldn't answer questions posed to him, such as on education funding, and he even had an expression of confusion on his face a few times - I don't want a Prime Minister who is confused easily, I want one who knows what he is doing. He simply looked out of his depth, which surprised me.

The opinion polls put Cameron above Brown though, which reinforces what I've thought for some time - even if Brown is actually a clever man, who is on top of the situation and could be the right person to deal with it, his lack of charisma - including such things as forced smiles to try and fix that but make it worse - means that he is a liability for his party as a whole.

I'm looking forward to this week's debate. I'll try and get some proper analysis up sooner after the event - probably not immediately as I have no way of watching it live.

I'll go over the Lib Dem manifesto tomorrow - I'd like to compare notes with Newsnight first, as it were.

Labour - Manifesto launched on Monday 12 April.

Newsnight

Labour's manifesto handily includes a set of 50 main policy points on pages 74 to 78 - it's well worth reading if you can spare 5-10 minutes. However, there isn't much that is new to it, and that is not much of a surprise - why would the Labour party seek to completely reform the machinery of Government that it has had 13 years to build up? As a result, there isn't as much to talk about. I'll go over some of the key points though.

• Job or training place for young people who are out of work for 6 months - benefits cut at 10 months if they refuse; anyone unemployed for more than 2 years guaranteed work, but no option of life on benefits - this should cut down on benefit fraud if it works.
• National minimum wage staying at least in-line with average earnings - not the rate of inflation - and £40-a-week Better Off in Work guarantee - not sure how that would work yet, but as a complaint I've heard a few times before is that its better to be on the dole than in a low-paying job, then that's a good thing if it works.
• No stamp duty for first time buyers on housing below £250k for two years, paid for by an increase on £1 million houses.
• Choice of good schools in every area, and where applicable, powers for new 'school leadership teams'.
• Improvements to waiting times, particularly cancer testing, or offer of going private - that could mire underperforming trusts in debt if not carefully managed.
• 'Father's Month' of flexible paid leave for new fathers - a step towards new parent gender equality but still a way off.
• Small moves towards electoral reform.

There's no real surprises here, frankly.

One point which Newsnight worked on a bit too much I thought - even before I saw the Tory manifesto analysis - was the lack of a pledge to keep VAT the same. Ed Milliband stated in his interview that it had never been mentioned in any other New Labour manifesto, but that doesn't really settle one's thoughts on the topic due to the economic situation. Here's my take on it: Putting up VAT would be a hugely unpopular move - both inside and outside Parliament. True, by not mentioning it they can simply save face if they do have to raise it - we made no commitments on VAT and such - but it will still be very unpopular, and they know that just as well as we do. But it gives the party some leeway in dealing with the public finances - if the economy underperforms, they have a means by which they can help bolster the taxes and meet their election pledge to half the deficit by 2014. I believe that some economists already consider Labour's growth estimates to be optimistic, but they would have to be more than simply optimistic to warrant the public backlash that a VAT hike would bring. And hey, growth in Q4 2009 (I think it was that period, may be wrong) was actually higher than their prediction. Not saying that growth will be higher than their predictions all the way, but their predictions may not be quite so optimistic as feared.

Conservative - Manifesto launched on Tuesday 13 April

Newsnight

I apologise for this section being so much longer than the Labour section - there is simply more to talk about as the Tories are not already in power. It should be an interesting read though, I hope.

The Tory manifesto shows two key things about the party that make them different from Labour. Firstly, the ideological process is entirely different. Left-wing politics tend to be about the state having more control to create equality for all, whereas right-wing politics - ignoring the far-right wing - are generally about reducing the involvement of the state and allowing local communities to do their own thing. That is exactly what their manifesto is about - letting people set up their own schools, referendums on increases to council tax, being able to sack your MP... All of this sounds good, but would it work well in reality?

Of the three points I mentioned, I'll take the last one first as it is the one that makes most sense. The ability to remove your MP - presumably to force a by-election where that same person may have the option of running for the seat again if their party decides to put the same person up as a candidate - is good. It is something that people want, especially in the wake of the expenses scandal. However, when you look at this as a part of electoral reform as a whole, the picture changes. See, the Tories are very much against any concept of electoral reform - proportional representation and the like. The ability to remove an MP and force a by-election, argubly, goes against their own ideals. While it is a good idea, to me it reads simply as a populist measure to gain votes. As does much of their manifesto. Referendums on council tax increases, for instance. That sounds good, but let's face it - many people will vote no to any tax increase, no matter how justified. The council won't be able to keep up with providing services, so they'll have to make cuts.

The issue of schools is an interesting one. The model they have adopted is a Swedish one, whereby people will be encouraged to set up - with funding - their own schools. It certainly sounds good, and I have no doubt that it could produce some good schools. However, a member of the public in Newsnight raised a good issue with this; devolution of powers over education to local populaces would have a high chance of causing an increase in regional inequality. What does that mean? In areas where there are enough people who have enough interest in the topic to get actively engaged, and have the means where they can afford to do so, good schools could come out of it. But not every area of the country is like that. There will be areas where people cannot afford to take time off of work, or don't have much interest in taking part, and will simply accept that their local school is good enough. You just need to watch the ask-the-public parts of these Newsnight features to see how uninterested many people are in politics, and it isn't a stretch to believe that many of these people, when presented with the chance to create a better quality of education if they engage with the topic, just won't bother.

Another point worth mentioning in brief is the idea of electing police officials. This is another populist measure that, in practice, most likely would not be good. There is an awful lot in an institution like the police that we simply do not understand. Jeremy Paxman raised this point well in Newsnight - if the common crime-related concerns are small crimes such as vandalism and ASBOs, what would happen if you voted in an official who focused too much on these points, either through sharing the popular view or simply wanting the vote? What would happen to other crimes, such as murder, terrorism? Do we really know the police better than people who have worked up through the ranks? I'm all for accountability, but sometimes a line has to be drawn. Stepping beyond that line for me would be stepping into ignorance. For others, stepping beyond that line is something that they have based their entire career around.

My second point, and a key one; the Conservative manifesto has a lot of holes in it. It is a concept of a new philosophy of Government, and one that - in my view - does not stand up to scrutiny. Beyond that, it does not set out how they would do all this; it does not talk about money. For an election situated in a time where finances are key, it is lacking on policies. I think this is a good way of summing up the Conservative party as a whole - the surface looks good, but under that, questions arise. Cameron likes to say that the Tory party has modernised, but they haven't; they still vote against gay rights, they still value the idea of 'marriage' in a time where people don't necessarily want to be married. They even want to bring back fox hunting! But they don't want us to look at that, they want us to look at David Cameron, the charismatic ex-PR leader of the party.

Want to know what's on the third page of the manifesto? A picture of Cameron, in black and white (with green divider lines above and below - not a colour vs black and white printing issue), writing at a desk. Cult of personality, anyone? This isn't American politics - we don't vote for a Prime Minister and Chancellor duo. We vote for a whole party. Has the whole party modernised? I don't think so.

Remember, it is not just the Labour party and the Conservative party - there are other parties besides. Do you know what the other parties are, what they stand for? Do you know what the Labour and Conservative parties stand for? If not, how do you know that your vote will go where you want it without knowing all the facts? This is going to be an important election, make sure you know where your vote is going is where you want it to go.

I've set up a page - accessible through the link in the navigation bar above - for information on the key points on various issues. This will primarily be sourcing information from other sites in an unbiased fashion, a quick overview of the situation. In my news posts, I will discuss things from my own political bias - but not in a fashion that is blind to what is around me - and I will look at details in more depth. After the break, I'll briefly outline the party political make-up of the UK - read on for my view.

Labour - Prime Minister: Gordon Brown. Chancellor of the Exchequer (the guy in charge of how the Government spends its money): Alistair Darling.

The current government for the past 13 years. Roots in the working classes, but New Labour went with a more centrist way to woo the middle class vote, which worked. Brown is not liked by many, but a party is more than just its leader. I've been happy with Darling's time as Chancellor myself. Their economic policy - the issue that will be central to this election - is to take time over it to ensure that the recovery continues safely.

Conservative - Leader of the Opposition: David Cameron. Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer: George Osborne.

The Tories are typically a party that aims to appeal to the higher-earners. They last held power with John Major, before losing the election in 1997. Nowadays, they are fronted by David Cameron, and are all about being more modern. Or so they say. David Cameron comes from a background in PR, so appealing to the public is his bread and butter. But the rest of the party is an unknown. Take civil rights as an example - Tory MEPs (Members of European Parliament) have been against rights for both women and gay people , and the shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling recently stated that he favoured the idea of certain B&Bs being allowed to discriminate against gay people - if you think about that beyond what he says, that's in support of discrimination for a paying service based solely on sexuality, which is ludicrous.

The Conservative economic policy is based around cuts, designed to reduce the budget deficit - how much the Government is borrowing - as quickly as possible. But these cuts come in both expenditure and in taxes - both money in and money out are being reduced, which is not a good basis for a strong economic policy.

Liberal Democrats - Leader: Nick Clegg. Economic Spokesperson: Vince Cable.

The Liberal Democrats are the third horse in what is often viewed as a two-horse race. They've not been elected into Government as a whole, but they have made gains - of the 646 seats in place at the moment (a number that changes with every election as boundaries are re-drawn), they hold 63. That's only 10% of the seats, but in terms of numbers of voters, its higher. They're a centre-left party, further to the left of New Labour, but perhaps not so much as Labour used to be. They aim to reduce the amount of inequality there is, on topics such as the rich/poor divide and social inequality.

Vince Cable is seen by some as being one of the party's strong points, particularly for an election where the topic is the economy, and for a good reason - he holds a PhD in Economics, and his background is in economics too, so he knows what he's talking about. The party has been up-front on the need for cuts, including potentially in front-line services. yet is not planning to bring them about as quickly as the Conservative party.

Green - Leader: Caroline Lucas

Previously seen as someone to vote for as a protest vote against the main parties, the issue of climate change has begun to change that. Lucas is the prospective parliamentary candidate for Brighton Pavillion, and could very well claim a seat in this upcoming election, helping to bring more force behind an issue that is both incredibly important yet is dismissed or forgotten by many.

UK Independence Party (UKIP) - Leader: Lord Pearson. Key Figure (recently leader): Nigel Farage

This party is entirely about getting out of Europe and stopping immigration. Isolationist nonsense, in my opinion. While immigration has increased over Labour's time in power - and in the eyes of many, increased too much - working to stop immigration altogether does not benefit the country as a whole, as it means that shortages of workers of specific types cannot be filled. Furthermore, leaving the EU would quite literally increase the population in the UK - we have more UK nationals living in Europe than we do Europeans living in the UK. The topic of immigration was discussed in Newsnight on Wednesday 31st of March - catch it on the iPlayer before it goes down!

British Nationalist Party (BNP) - Leader: Nick Griffin

Racist, bigoted nonsense. Over the past 10 or so years, the party has stylised itself as being more moderate to get votes - but that was their plan. Look at this video to hear it from Griffin's mouth directly. I've heard an argument that the age of this video invalidates the argument that its the same rubbish in different clothes, but it is the age of the video that is precisely why this point is important - He is speaking about the BNP's long-term plan to appeal to the public. He is talking about ways to change his party's message as a stepping-stone towards their true message of bigotry and racism. That was the start of the plan; they are currently in the middle of the plan. There is a good reason why the BNP attracts such vocal and violent opposition, and from native British people too, the demographic that they want to appeal to.

All future music will be added to the relevant playlist as normal, but I'll be adding each track to its own Flash player and its own post, so comments can be made for individual tracks. I'll see if I can figure out how to do a rating system too.

The comic arena has a bit of a thing going on, with syndicated artists acting entirely ignorant to the potential of the internet, unwilling to make changes to adapt to the modern age, despite quite a few webcomic artists making a living entirely from their comics thanks to advertising, donations, and/or merchandise. Whilst I don't like all of these comics, and find the arrogance of certain artists appalling, there is a point to consider here - simply selling the main product isn't the only way of making money. Some people will happily pay for secondary products if they enjoy the primary product, which in the case of webcomics, they can get for free.

Now, I can't draw very well, and I don't have the patience to improve any ability I might have - it's simply not what I find fun. However, I do write music, and I enjoy it, and people are beginning to expect to get music for free, be it legally through services such as Spotify, or illegally if they have to. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Once I'm back home, I'll start thinking about how to put in to effect a website that will allow people to download, listen, rate, and comment on my music for free. All of it. Once the website is good to go, I'll begin adding more content - the first load of content will be computer game background music, as that's what I need to work on for my dissertation, however I'll work on multiple genres, with a focus on electronic music since it appeals to my geekyness. If I get any sort of interest, I'll figure out how to set up donation services, advertising, and mayhaps merchandise - nothing too intrusive, as frankly I can't stand over-the-top such things. Now, I'm not saying I can easily translate free music to a viable business model through these three input sources - after all, artists have a better time providing merchandising due to the simple fact that you can put art on to a t-shirt or a poster or some other item, you can't put music onto many places except on a CD or on an MP3 player - and why bother paying for something for an MP3 player when it's already available for free? Perhaps higher bitrates available as a donation incentive? I don't know. Yet.

This is something that, although I've just thought it up as I lie in bed at my mum's house, does make sense to me, and sounds interesting. Even if it doesn't work out - I'm not doing anything with my music at the moment anyway, so what's the problem?

The other point with music in terms of revenue streams is royalties. Now, frankly, I think royalties are a great idea - radio station plays your song to draw in listeners whilst making money from advertising based on number of listeners, you should get paid for part of that. Or someone covers a song and wants to make money from it, hey, you can't get paid for my material! However, people who use the music in a non-commercial venue shouldn't be punished. So, I'll still defend my copyright like other artists, but I'm not going to go after those who use my work for non-commercial reasons - although in some cases I'd like to be asked first - for instance, game mod trailers or similar - as I may not like what I see, or on the other side of the coin, I may want to be more involved! Anyway, I don't need to make a decision about that just yet.

That last paragraph became a bit of a random flow of thoughts, but yeah, I think this is an idea worth investigating.