I have no answers to these, but they keep popping up when I follow UK election reports:
1. How much of the LD vote is a protest vote and how much can be said to be issue based (meaning: how stable is the surge in LD share of the vote in polls)?
2. How much is due to the Clegg-effect (Cleggfect?), and – to use the Danish phrase – how much could be picked up by a hobby-horse anyway?
3. Supposing there is no overall control in the 2010 parliament, how big are the chances of a coalition government (as compared with a tolerated minority government)? Risks and opportunities for the LD?
4. I have noted that no-one has yet called Clegg on which (formal or informal) coalition partner the party would prefer after the election. Strikes me as odd. (Or maybe this is because everybody knows that the LD draws its vote from L and assume that the only realistic option would be an L-LD pact?)
5. Main issues besides discontent? I’ve noted that the Guardian spent an hour discussing education in a podcast – but what else? Economy, employment?
6. I noted that L is using the “Brown is a safe pair of hands”-argument. Somewhere in the back of my head, I have Germany 1998 (“Weiter so” – not so, the voters said) and Denmark 2001 (“Nyrup the statesman”) as templates for disaster. Brown did better than I would have expected in last week’s debate, but patronising is very a difficult, if not outright dangerous, strategy for an unpopular leader.
7. Promising an Upper House of Parliament elected by PR seems like a dangerous strategy by Labour. Maybe I’m being Scandinavian here, but wouldn’t a more representative but less powerful chamber seriously expose the problems in FPTP – opening for a massive constitutional crisis?