Election 2015 live: IFS says Scotland's block grant would fall under SNP's plans, but not under Labour's
- Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman found guilty of 'corrupt practices'
- IFS says Labour would only need 'small cuts' to hit borrowing targets
- Osborne says investors are warning of interest rate rise under Labour
- Labour provides examples of investors who disagree
- IFS says Scotland's block grant would fall under SNP's plans, but not under Labour's
- Lunchtime summary
5.31pm BST
Labour have responded to Lectern-gate.
.@CCHQPress No wonder David Cameron is scared of lecterns - he won't defend his record. pic.twitter.com/lFMrv0ULC5
5.22pm BST
The Conservative press team have a thing about Miliband's lectern.
Everywhere you go, you always take your lectern with you #MeAndMyLectern pic.twitter.com/z9xEd5lJj9
5.14pm BST
There was an education debate on the BBC's daily politics show earlier, featuring the Conservatives' Nicky Morgan, the Lib Dems' David Laws, the Greens' James Humphreys, Ukip's Jonathan Arnott, and Labour's Tristram Hunt. The show was hosted by Andrew Neil and BBC's education editor Branwen Jeffreys. I've compiled a summary of some of the key points of the debate - the most important being that Tristam Hunt said Labour would fire teachers not qualified or training to become qualified by 2020.
My verdict of the debate as a whole? No one came out on top. Nicky Morgan refused to acknowledge the attainment gap, Tristram Hunt could barely give a straight answer to any of the questions directed at him, David Laws used the coalition as an excuse for his party's failures, James Humphreys justified his policies by using the old adage "because we just can" and Jonathan Arnott sounded like a reactionary in most instances. Out of all of them, Humphreys was probably the least evasive.
Labour would fire teachers who were not qualified or being trained (by 2020) @TristramHuntMP tells @afneil on #bbcdp https://t.co/EJrKQg5J31
Is it acceptable for an education secretary to send their child to a private school @afneil asks his #bbcdp panel? https://t.co/A5VI9mnHlz
4.57pm BST
Hello, I'm taking over from Andrew now for the rest of the day. Stay tuned for the latest developments as we tie up all the loose ends from today's election campaign. I'm on Twitter @nadiakhomami and I'll keep an eye on your comments below the line as well, so let me know if there's anything I've missed.
This has to be the best endorsement in the (brief) history of time. #GE2015 pic.twitter.com/akYxOSltnR
4.45pm BST
Britain Thinks has released it latest floating voters focus group report. It has been conducting focus groups as part of the Battleground Britain project it is conducting with the Guardian, and this report is from a focus group conducted on Tuesday, in Taunton Deane, a Lib Dem/Conservative contest (pdf).
The whole thing is worth reading, but here are some conclusions that struck me as particularly interesting.
In general, the campaign has led to existing preferences hardening and most of our panelists were reasonably certain of who they were likely to vote for in May. For some, however, voting intention has been affected (if not fundamentally changed) by the better-than-expected performance of Miliband and Sturgeon in the debates, a few symbolic policy announcements, and perceptions of the local candidates.
"I think I feel more favourable toward Labour actually. I think it's probably due to Ed Miliband's performance. I think he's got stronger. I was impressed that he attended the opposition leaders' debate and that he's stood up and taken responsibility for the mistakes they've made."
"I'm not really a Labour man and I had a poor opinion of Ed Miliband but I've warmed to him. It makes me think he's not had a fair crack of the whip because he's come across well."
Most were surprised at David Cameron's absence in the opposition leaders' debate and thought it impacted negatively on him; however, some thought that this was because he was deliberately and unfairly excluded.
Most, even those who had previously been considering Ukip, thought that Farage had done badly out of the debates, coming across as personally dislikable.
4.18pm BST
Tonight STV will broadcast At Home with Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell, the first of five specials profiling party leaders in advance of the general election.
Filmed over a couple of weeks, starting at the SNP's spring conference at the end of March, the first minister and her husband - who is chief executive of the SNP - answer a series of soft but still quite revealing questions about their relationship, their public profile and who is in charge of the remote.
One of the things I live with in politics and public life is [people discussing] what you wear and I can't really stop people doing that, so I thought if people were going to talk about what I wear, wouldn't it be good if they were talking about who designed it, who made it and if that's a Scottish company, so teaming up with Totty Rocks has been fantastic.
I suppose people have an understandable curiosity. On the other hand Alex Salmond doesn't have children. He might tell you differently but I'm not aware of reading an interview or seeing an interview with Alex Salmond asking that question ...
The idea that you would ever make a conscious decision about these things, some women possibly do and there's nothing wrong with that, but I certainly, we certainly, didn't.
4.12pm BST
The Green party published a report today saying the south west of England could produce 100% of its energy needs from renewables. It was launched by the economist and Green MEP for the south west Molly Scott Cato.
Launching our report The Power to Transform the SW @AtBristol We can go 100+% #renewableenergy http://t.co/GJ73FunVMD pic.twitter.com/e53x0Ehnxq
4.07pm BST
The IFS has rejected claims by Nicola Sturgeon at first minister's questions in the Scottish parliament that they got their figures wrong about SNP borrowing plans for 2019/20. Sturgeon said the SNP wanted to borrow 1.6% of GDP that year, not the 1.4% "assumed" by the IFS.
The IFS responded:
As you will probably have gathered from reading our document, we did not actually 'assume' 1.4% of GDP borrowing, this was the outcome of using [the SNP's] stated plans for total spending, plus estimates of the effect of their tax measures. In terms of the implications for public spending, the only assumption we made was that they increased spending in the way they said they would.
4.04pm BST
On Sky News earlier Jim Murphy, the Scottish Labour leader, said: "We're pretty clear there will be no coalition, there will be no formal deal with the Labour Party and the SNP."
The Tories have interpreted that as Murphy confirming that there will be an informal deal. They have put out this statement from George Osborne.
Ed Miliband's campaign is now in meltdown as Labour's most senior figure in Scotland has given the game away - Ed Miliband's only route into Downing Street is in the pocket of the SNP.
3.55pm BST
Nicola Sturgeon has also been responding to the IFS report on Twitter.
Before Scottish Lab gets excited about IFS, they should be aware that Ed Miliband says it underestimates Labour's cuts. #GE15 #voteSNP
While @scottishlabour are punting the #IFS report, UK Labour are busy saying it is based on wrong assumptions: https://t.co/wHtw8lfcqS #GE15
3.43pm BST
There is a new Panelbase poll out today.
New (21/04-23/04) @panelbase #GE2015 poll results: LAB 34% (NC), CON 31% (-2%), UKIP 17% (+1), LD 7% (-1), GRN 4% (NC). Tables up soon.
3.42pm BST
If George Galloway loses in Bradford West, where is is standing for re-election as a Respect MP, he has an alternative career plan.
.@georgegalloway tells @SkyNews @joetidy that he will run for London Mayor if he loses MP battle in Bradford.
3.39pm BST
There were heated clashes over the IFS report in the Scottish parliament after Nicola Sturgeon was challenged by her Labour opponents to respond to the IFS's conclusion that SNP plans would lead by 2019 to deeper UK spending cuts than Labour. (See 2.02pm.)
3.29pm BST
Even Tory-supporting commentators on the Spectator admit that Ed Miliband has more momentum than Cameron going into the fortnight of the campaign. Speaking on the magazine's View from 22 podcast, after interviewing David Cameron, Fraser Nelson and James Forsyth said Ed Miliband was having a better campaign than expected and was outperforming a passionless Cameron.
Looking ahead to the final two weeks, Nelson said one of the key questions was whether Miliband could "keep up his rather extraordinary momentum". He added:
We all expected, lets be honest, Ed Miliband's campaign to be tragicomedy. One where he would be eating bacon sandwiches badly ... but in the last few weeks he's been exactly the reverse. We see him stepping off buses to the cheers and whoops of hen parties, we see him giving decent performances on television ... [It is] making voters think twice about him. The proposal to ban non-doms was a very effective, a very clever, and a very simple promise from Labour, which just gave a promissory note about its values ... and I think that went down pretty well with voters. I don't think either [the parties] will have a similar card to play in the next two weeks.
It will basically be this odd Miliband momentum versus whatever the Tories can do to persuade England to be afraid of Scotland.
Watching him [Cameron] on the stump you can see he is trying to be more passionate. The irony is that this is a high stakes election, the size of the state is on the ballot, the union is on the ballot, Britain's place in Europe is on the ballot ... But at the moment it seems to be Labour who are more effective at communicating what their answers to those questions are.
3.22pm BST
Speaking on the Liberal Democrat battle bus, which is currently travelling from Brecon in Wales back to London, Nick Clegg was asked to comment on Gordon Brown's suggestion that David Cameron was trying to whip up English nationalist feeling.
Even if the Tories didn't go on and on about this, which they are doing of course to extract political advantage at election time, the fact still is that the SNP themselves are saying they would hold Labour to ransom, so it's perfectly legitimate to take the SNP at their word.
The Conservative party is not a UK party. They have one MP. They've given up on Scotland. You wouldn't behave the way the Conservative party is, where you only try and mobilise one voter group in one part of the United Kingdom, if you wanted to be a truly national party.
The Conservative party is basically an English party, and principally a suburban English party. It has no presence in large parts of the United Kingdom and it's been wiped out in much of the North of England. I look at my own patch - as you know we took Sheffield Hallam from the Conservatives in 1997 when they had lots of Conservative councillors. There's now not a single Conservative councillor in Sheffield.
3.14pm BST
3.12pm BST
Nicola Sturgeon's insistence that Scotland's large fiscal gap can be closed by rapidly accelerating Scottish economic growth have been challenged by figures in a new report from Fiscal Affairs Scotland, the economics think tank.
The FAS report shows Scottish GDP has never risen fast enough to allow Scotland to reach the higher than 5% annual growth needed to close a fiscal gap which, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said earlier this week, would grow each year to reach nearly 10bn by 2019/20.
3.01pm BST
London Transport has been dragged into a general election controversy in Northern Ireland involving those potential local kingmakers the Democratic Unionist Party.
Ballymena-based company Wrightbus makes 'Routemaster' buses for Transport for London.
2.29pm BST
2.23pm BST
Here's the latest election video from the Guardian's John Harris. He has been investigating the plight of the Tories in the north east.
2.18pm BST
2.02pm BST
The Institute for Fiscal Studies report says Scotland's block grant would be lower under the SNP's plans than under Labour's. This is because the IFS says the SNP's claim to end austerity is misleading (see 11.39am) and because, although its plans imply almost exactly the same level of total spending from 2015-15 to 2018-19 as Labour, it plans slower growth in spending in 2019-20. On Scotland's block grant the report (pdf) says.
In this illustrative scenario, the block grant for Scotland would be cut under the Conservatives between 2015-16 and 2019-20, but by slightly less than the overall cut to departmental spending. In contrast, under Labour and the Liberal Democrats the block grant for Scotland would increase, but by less than the increase in total departmental spending. (In part, this arises from how the Barnett formula works: the level of spending per head is greater in Scotland than in England, and so the same pounds-per-head increase in spending would represent a smaller proportionate budget increase for Scotland.) In fact, the block grant for Scotland would be increased by slightly more under the Liberal Democrats than under Labour in this illustrative scenario, despite their slightly smaller increase in overall departmental spending, because the Liberal Democrats have pledged greater increases than Labour in spending on the NHS and education (which both count as 'comparable English spending'). The SNP plans imply lower growth in total departmental spending between 2015-16 and 2019-20 than the plans of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. This, combined with the fact they have not pledged to protect education spending (which is 'comparable English spending'), actually results, in this illustrative scenario, in a small cut in the block grant for Scotland
Today is the day the SNP's rhetoric collided with the reality.
This revelation from the IFS exposes the true reality of the SNP's plans. The independent experts at the IFS show clearly that the SNP will cut Scotland's budget.
1.38pm BST
On his visit to Penzance earlier, David Cameron renewed his warnings about the impact of having a minority Labour government dependent on the SNP. The south west of England would lose out, he claimed. He said the region was already suffering because Labour did not care about anything "west of Bristol".
Now imagine what it would be like if Alex Salmond was calling the shots. What chance do you think there would be of CAP (common agricultural policy) money staying here in Cornwall for our farmers rather than being taken up to Scotland as the SNP suggests?
What chance do you think there would be of the A303 being dualled, or the extra work on the A30, or the investment in the trains? What chance would that have of happening when you have got a bunch of politicians who are only interested in one part of our United Kingdom? So I am very fearful of what could happen if this toxic tie-up between Labour and the SNP takes place.
1.31pm BST
There's no sign of a video yet from Ed Miliband, but he posted a message on Twitter.
Happy St George's Day to everyone across England and further afield. We can be proud of our country, of our ingenuity, our industry.
Happy St. George's Day to all! http://t.co/Jju1ccgEHd pic.twitter.com/lU8sytSSIu
1.27pm BST
David Cameron has not been celebrating St George's Day by morris dancing. But he has recorded a video message to mark the occasion.
On #StGeorgesDay, let's all be proud of our country's great past - and confident about our future. My video message: https://t.co/xG0e10oF6D
1.24pm BST
The FT's Giles Wilkes admires the IFS's expertise at euphemism.
The IFS has entire department to generate circumlocutions for the word "b***sh1t" pic.twitter.com/OXiXVkT47S
1.22pm BST
At a briefing this morning Peter Whittle, Ukip's culture spokesman, accused the establishment of "cultural self-loathing". He said St George's Day should be an "inclusive opportunity" to come together to celebrate common values.
A country is not just its economy and its identity cannot just be read on a balance sheet. We believe in our hearts and our minds that this is a great country to be proud of and part of.
But for too long I think we have lived with a political and cultural establishment which has shown a sort of disdain for England and doubted Britain as a whole and has discouraged pride in it. Their embarrassment about our past, their lack of concern for our history has permeated our culture.
1.10pm BST
Labour received more than 1m in donations in the second week of the election campaign, more than twice as much as the Conservative party, the Press Association reports. The Lib Dems were given 50,000 and Ukip 8,000, according to figures from the Electoral Commission, while the Scottish Greens reported receiving 9,124 of public funds. Ukip also reported 63,000 worth of donations late, the commission said.
1.06pm BST
And here is David Cameron on the IFS report.
What the IFS show is that a Labour government would have to borrow 90bn more. That would be a risk to our recovery, a risk to our economy, a risk to jobs.
1.02pm BST
And here is David Laws, the Lib Dem education minister, on the IFS findings.
The IFS could not be clearer - when it comes to the economy the Liberal Democrats are the most transparent and are the party that will end austerity the earliest.
By contrast, the IFS lift the lid on Tory plans to cut public spending to the bone and accuse them of burying details of their the plans to shrink the state.
12.59pm BST
Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said today that the IFS claim that debt would be 90bn higher under Labour than under the Conservatives (see 10.24am) was wrong.
The IFS assumptions are based on three different things, which I frankly don't accept. The first is based on the idea that when it comes to our plan it's not simply the budget in balance, which is what they say our plan is, we want a current surplus.
Secondly, they pick out a particular year for when we are going to achieve it. And thirdly, I don't accept this point that the Tories are even going to achieve their plans.
12.55pm BST
Kellie Maloney, the former boxing promoter who received a standing ovation at the Ukip conference in February after talking about her experience as a transsexual, told a press conference this morning she could not commit to backing the party at the election. "I'm not even sure who I'm going to vote for myself," she said.
12.48pm BST
Recorded crime in England and Wales has gone up by 2%, even though crime survey figures, which measure people's experience of crime, suggest it fell by 7%.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, issued this statement.
These figures show the first rise in recorded crime for ten years and expose the shocking complacency of David Cameron and Theresa May over crime and policing.
And it shows the risk posed by the Tories who the IFS have this morning confirmed have the most extreme plans for cuts of any political party - cuts which risk thousands more police officers being lost the next three years than in the last five.
12.42pm BST
The resumption of first minister's questions after the Easter recess saw a fractious exchange between Nicola Sturgeon and deputy Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale on the thorny subject of online abuse.
12.38pm BST
Lutfur Rahman has been ordered to pay 250,000 in costs, the Standard's Joe Watts reports.
....AND, to top it all off, Rahman has been ordered to pay 250,000 costs. A comprehensive defeat.
12.34pm BST
Here is today's Guardian three-minute election interview, with Jonathan Freedland and Polly Toynbee considering why the Tories are stirring up English nationalism.
12.29pm BST
Lutfur Rahman has described the court ruling as "a shock" and "surprising to say the least" in a statement from Tower Hamlets First.
Today's judgment has come as a shock - the mayor strongly denies any wrongdoing and had full confidence in the justice system, and so this result has been surprising to say the least.
We are seeking further legal advice on the matter in relation to a judicial review.
12.26pm BST
John Biggs, the Labour candidate who was beaten by Lutfur Rahman in the Tower Hamlets mayoral election last May, has described the court ruling as "a victory for honest politics".
Today's ruling is a victory for honest politics. By setting out to break the rules and going to extraordinary lengths to win last May's mayoral election, Lutfur Rahman and his allies robbed the people of Tower Hamlets of the free and fair mayoral election they deserved and betrayed everyone in our community who trusted and voted for him.
People from across our community have been badly let down by the mayor. After five years of abuse of public funds and public trust, it's time that residents have a council that is again on their side, that restores faith in free and fair elections and heals divisions in our community.
12.20pm BST
Boris Johnson has welcomed the Lutfur Rahman ruling.
Boris Johnson on Rahman/Tower Hamlets ruling: "The cloud has been lifted from Tower Hamlets."
12.11pm BST
The Guardian's Rajeev Syal has this report from the high court, which you can read in full here:
The mayor of Tower Hamlets has been kicked out of office after being found guilty of widespread corruption in seeking office last May.
The mayoral election in the east London borough will be rerun after Lutfur Rahman and his supporters were found to have been involved in vote-rigging, seeking spiritual influence through local imams, and wrongly branding his Labour rival a racist.
12.07pm BST
Here is Tessa Jowell, the former Labour minister and a favourite to get the Labour nomination for London mayor, on the Lutfur Rahman ruling.
Lutfur Rahman verdict is a victory for decency in politics. Corruption has no place in our city. The people of Tower Hamlets deserve better.
12.03pm BST
This is what the Press Association has filed on the Lutfur Rahman case so far. It is written in a slightly odd way because the PA started filing before the judge had finished delivering his judgment.
A mayor accused of electoral fraud has been criticised by a judge following a high court hearing.
Four voters took legal action against Lutfur Rahman, independent mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London, at a hearing in the high court.
11.59am BST
Lutfur Rahman has been unseated as the independent mayor of Tower Hamlets after being found guilty of found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.
Lutfur Rahman unseated as mayor of #towerhamlets and banned from standing again after series of election offences. Petitioners vindicated.
11.51am BST
Speaking on LBC, Nick Clegg was asked about the letter to the House of Lords signed by Labour peer Lord Janner, one week before the director of public prosecutions ruled that he was unfit to stand trial for child sex abuse allegations.
I'm sure people with dementia can sign letters. I'm not going to start making judgements about whether one signed letter in and of itself confounds the judgement the DPP has arrived at.
If there could be a way in which this could be looked at again entirely independently, and there's real integrity in that process, then I think that might be something that should be done.
11.45am BST
John Swinney, Scotland's deputy first minister and finance secretary, has told the Guardian he broadly accepts the IFS findings about the longer term implications of the SNP's plans for 0.5% higher rate of public spending.
We acknowledge it will take us longer to get the public finances into surplus but we will do that by a process of investment, starting after the election and the election of SNP MPs will have that as their priority.
"Essentially, what we can say is with higher growth rates, there will be improvements in the performance of the public finances. Crucially, also, I would accept that it does take us longer to get the deficit down. Yes, I accept that it will have to be undertaken over more years than the other parties will propose but that's because of the choice we're putting to people, to bring austerity to an end at an earlier stage.
11.42am BST
I'm sorry that the blog went quiet for a while. We had major problems with the website. But we seem to be back to normal again now.
11.39am BST
And this is what the IFS is saying about the SNP.
They would cut less to start with but the implication of the plans they have spelt out in their manifesto is that the period of austerity would be longer than under the other three parties we consider.
10.58am BST
This is what the IFS is saying about Lib Dem plans.
Their plans require real cuts to departmental spending of 3.4% between 2014-15 and 2017-18 (or 9.0% outside of the NHS, education and aid). This is predicated on their aspiration to raise 0.3% of national income (7 billion) from highly uncertain measures to reduce tax avoidance and evasion by 2017-18. By the end of the parliament the Liberal Democrats claim to expect to raise 10 billion - twice as much as the Conservatives, and a third more than Labour, from such measures.
The Liberal Democrats are aiming for a tightening between that of Labour and the Conservatives. They have failed to spell out details of how they would achieve much of their tightening, relying heavily on unspecified measures to reduce tax avoidance and evasion (7 billion) as well as some unspecified social security cuts (2 billion).
10.53am BST
This is what the IFS is saying about the Labour plans.
It looks like Labour might need only relatively small cuts to departments other than aid, NHS and education spending - on top of the cuts already in place for 2015-16 - to bring about a balance on the current budget by 2018-19.
10.41am BST
Here is the IFS chart setting out the parties' alternative spending plans.
10.39am BST
This is what the IFS is saying about Conservative plans.
The Conservatives need to spell out substantially more detail of how they will deliver the overall fiscal targets they have set themselves.
[This would lead to] a cumulative cut over the whole period from 2010-11 to 2018-19 of 32.8%). These 'unprotected' areas include defence, transport, law and order and social care.
10.24am BST
This is what the IFS says about the key differences between the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP.
All four parties' plans imply further austerity over the next parliament. The Conservatives are planning a reduction in borrowing over the next parliament of 5.2% of national income, which would result in a surplus of 0.2% of national income by 2018-19. Labour have been less clear about their plans for borrowing, but their ambition to balance the current budget would be consistent with a smaller reduction in borrowing of 3.6% of national income, bringing it to 1.4% of national income by 2018-19. The Liberal Democrats are aiming for a borrowing reduction of 3.9%, to be achieved a year earlier (i.e. in 2017-18), while the SNP tax and spending plans imply a borrowing reduction of 3.6% of national income, but this would not be completed until 2019-20.
Unfortunately, the electorate is at best armed with only an incomplete picture of what they can expect from any of these four parties.
Under the Conservative plans, debt as a share of national income could be reduced from 80% of national income in 2014-15 to 72% by 2019-20. Under Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP plans, debt in 2019-20 could be more like 77%, 75% and 78% respectively.
Under the assumptions we have made, debt would be about 90 billion more in 2019-20 if Labour's plans were implemented than if the Conservatives' plans were implemented. Higher debt entails higher debt interest payments, and would potentially leave the government less well placed to deal with future adverse events.
10.12am BST
Here is the Institute for Fiscal Studies briefing in full (pdf).
10.11am BST
IFS chart of the various borrowing trajectories implied by manifestos. pic.twitter.com/QDK9GA5gXP
10.09am BST
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has just started its briefing on the election manifestos.
Tories to cut 30bn from unprotected depts, LibDems 12bn, Lab 1bn say @TheIFS
Debt would be 90bn lower under Tories than Lab says @TheIFS, if they meet their tax and spending plans
So @theifs analysis of manifestos out now: Conservative plans could see debt falling by 2020 from 80% of GDP to 72%... Labour to 77%
. @TheIFS: "Despite planning for more austerity, the Conservatives' detailed tax policies amount to a net giveaway"...
10.00am BST
George Osborne has been visiting MIRA, a car technology company in Nuneaton. As Labour pointed out earlier (see 8.11am), George Gillespie, the MIRA chief executive, told the Today programme that Conservative policy on Europe was a threat to his business.
Gillespie said:
One of the reasons that MIRA has been very successful is that the UK is seen around the world as a good place to set up business, it has a very good legal system, we have reasonable employment laws, a good balance between employee and employer and we are a landing strip for Europe. If we cut ourselves from Europe all of a sudden that whole reason for coming to the UK starts to disappear and that makes that much more difficult to attract foreign investment in the UK ...
The perception around the world even as we discuss it now, before we even get to having a referendum and the consequences of that, I'm in China, I'm having to explain that no, the UK is not leaving Europe right now but even the discussion that are going on are already having ripple effects around the world. In terms of the perception that the UK is moving away from Europe.
9.55am BST
Surprising news from the Guardian's TV and broadcasting guru, John Plunkett: Nigel Farage's interview with the BBC's Evan Davis last night was the most watched of all the leaders' interviews.
Nigel Farage wins! His BBC1 i'view with @EvanHD was watched by 2.5m viewers, v 2m for Clegg, 1.9m @Ed_Miliband 1.8m David Cameron
9.43am BST
And, since George Osborne triggered a debate about what the markets think about the election, here's the conclusion from a briefing prepared by UBS Wealth Management, a private bank, earlier this month. It said a minority government was the most likely outcome, and that both potential options had downsides for investors.
In our view, the greater concern for markets will be who leads a minority government. However, neither choice of leading party presents an ideal outcome for investors, as BREXIT concerns (Conservative) will be countered by worries about the outlook for fiscal policy (Labour).
The currency's value should clearly decline to reflect the risk of extended policy uncertainty under minority rule. BREXIT fears will likely dominate investor thoughts in this scenario with a focus on the time line to such a referendum vote alongside the likelihood of the government recommending retained membership based on agreed reforms. Sterling remains at risk of further weakness against the US dollar. Further, a marginally sharper pace of austerity could dampen sentiment, prompting the BoE to remain on hold for longer and weakening sterling.
The currency's value should clearly decline to reflect the risk of extended policy uncertainty under minority rule. BREXIT fears will certainly fade, but these could be replaced by concerns about overall fiscal credibility and devolution, especially if Labour relies on the SNP for informal support. Perception of looser fiscal policy, (beyond current spending) in 2016/17 could however be countered by a steeper path of interest rate rises which could offer some support to the currency.
9.34am BST
I've had a chance to look through the full Citigroup report that Labour flagged up earlier. (See 9.16am.) In its overall assessment it makes the point that, despite what "alarmist" newspaper headlines say, markets are not too worried about the election.
Markets have thus far been relatively unruffled at the prospect of political uncertainty, with 49% of investors surveyed (FT/Interactive Investor) indicating that they were not changing their portfolio ahead of the election, while 30.4% say they will wait until after the result.
Alarmist newspaper headlines aside, there has also been seemingly limited pre- election volatility in sterling with market impact being limited with only few signs of nerves. Whether this limited change in investor positioning reflects the high degree of uncertainty about which party will lead the next government, or a relaxed attitude by investors about the precise composition of government in a country experiencing relatively robust economic growth is unclear.
9.21am BST
As Weldon says, Morgan Stanley has identified three possible outcomes, and thinks all of them could have a "negative" outcome on the economy. But not that negative.
But before we get carried with gloom, it's worth noting that they add: "Nonetheless, across all scenarios, we see growth continuing at around 2% in 2015-16, and the deficit more than halving over the next Parliament."
In other words, whoever forms a government, Morgan Stanley don't see the UK recovery being derailed.
9.18am BST
Alex Salmond has been on the radio, where he again dismissed David Cameron's "po-faced response" to his joke about writing Labour's budget and dismissed any threats to his own campaign chances from tactical voting.
Jo Swinson is following her leader...here's her PS on tactical voting to constituents in East Dunbartonshire #GE2015 pic.twitter.com/ZT8JvfvFWT
9.16am BST
Labour has sent me some alternative quotes about what the markets think about a Labour victory. They are from an election briefing from Citigroup, the global bank.
But markets appear relaxed about UK political uncertainty. We argue that there is less to fear from a minority government than in the past: given limited fiscal policy divergence between the main parties, our economic forecasts are unlikely to change.
Is a Labour minority government riskier than a Labour majority? In practice, however, we suspect that a Labour-led minority government would be able to implement the modest fiscal tightening needed to meet the CBR targets. The fiscal position is likely to continue undershooting official forecasts, and the recent budget plans aim to massively over-achieve versus the CBR targets. Moreover, Labour's fiscal plans include tax hikes (top tax rate, mansion tax, bank bonus tax) that have little direct impact on Scotland. As a result, a Labour-led government could add significantly to planned public spending - assuaging the SNP's concerns -- while still meeting the CBR targets.
Conservative-led minority government may be less risky than a majority one. A Conservative-led majority government would raise Brexit risk, because it would be committed to hold an EU referendum by the end of 2017 (and a commitment to agree such a referendum would surely be a necessary condition for a renewal of the current Cons/LD coalition). We believe that Brexit (if it happens) would be highly damaging for the UK economy, given the UK's major role as a hub for global businesses that export to other EU countries.
9.04am BST
The Conservatives have sent me a five-page briefing note with a string of quotes from investors and financial experts warning about the market implications of the election leading to a minority Labour government. Here are the key ones, which George Osborne was referring to on Today. (See 8.43am.)
Obviously, these are selective quotes. Investors are also hugely worried about the impact of the EU referendum that the Conservatives are proposing but that Labour is opposing. I will post more on that later.
A Labour-led government supported by the SNP would likely lead to a marked selloff in gilts, in our view. We would expect uncertainty as to just how anti-austerity and how interventionist the government would be. The topic of a renewed referendum on independence for Scotland would also hang in the air. Investors may well think the MPC could hike sooner, as the current trade-off between austerity and loose monetary policy would be challenged.
Sterling is the asset that appears most at risk from a 'market-unfriendly' election outcome, although FX volatility markets have already priced in a significant degree of election risk. Concerns over budgetary discipline, if left unchecked, could lead to a rise in Gilt yields.
We've seen so much uncertainty on the markets already. The fear will be that a Labour government supported by the SNP spend more and do less to tackle the deficit. That will have implications for the bond markets and could force the Bank of England to tighten policy. So we could have a scenario, a dangerous cocktail, where taxes are going up, spending is going up, and interest rates are going up.
The SNP could encourage Labour to move further to the left in government. The result would be increased taxes " and likely a slower reduction in the deficit. One consequence could be higher short- and longer-term interest rates as markets reassess the UK's willingness to accumulate sovereign debt, and the Bank of England responds to higher near-term growth thanks to stronger government spending.
A weak minority/coalition government (or a government that drifts from fiscal pledges) may lead the bond market to question the speed of falling gilt supply. Issuance expectations could rise moderately, leading buyers to demand higher risk premia on long-dated bonds.
9.00am BST
My colleague Frances Perraudin has sent this report with more detail of the Liberal Democrats' care policy announcement this morning, a key plank of the party's "disability manifesto":
Nick Clegg is in Brecon and Radnorshire today, to launch his party's disability manifesto. A highlight of the document is a commitment to provide 150m for Britain's 6.5m carers who look after older, disabled or seriously ill family members.
Under the party's plans carers would receive a 250 bonus to ease the cost of looking after family members who need support for 35 hours or more each week over a 12 month period.
8.43am BST
That was not a particularly revealing interview, but George Osborne did use it to unleash a new attack on Labour. Here are the key points.
I have got in front of me a whole list of international investors and observers of the British economy who now warn that this unstable combination will lead to higher market interest rates, which means higher mortgage rates for families, which means higher bills, cut incomes, it means businesses finding it more difficult to expand ...
Let's take one of Canada's largest banks, CIBC. They say a Labour government supported by the SNP would lead to a dangerous cocktail where taxes are going up, spending is going up, interest rates are going up. They have been joined by Morgan Stanley, the US investment bank, BlackRock, which is the largest pension fund in the world, Deutsche Bank, the largest German banks. These are pretty unsentimental people. These are economists and investors who make a living predicting what is going to happen to different economies around the world. And this week they have come out in a chorus to point out the consequences for the UK of departing from the economic plan we've pursued.
Osborne right that many investors warning about Lab-SNP govt. Most of those investors also concerned by Conservative EU policy. #r4today
Osborne being a bit misleading on international investors. Most warning about economic risk under any minority govt, Lab or Con led #r4today
Warning against Labour George Osborne on R4 Today cites major investment banks, the very people who caused the financial crash & recession !
Marks out of 10 for election campaign? Humphrys asks @George_Osborne Reply: "Come back on May 8th & see how it went" pic.twitter.com/Qx56184Eq2
8.24am BST
Osborne says the alternative to a Conservative government is what Gordon Brown described as "constitutional chaos".
Humphrys says that, after the leaders' debate, Osborne was the person who went into the spin room saying Nicola Sturgeon did well.
8.19am BST
Q: You are in charge of the Tory election campaign. You cannot be pleased with how it is going?
Osborne says he does not accept that.
8.14am BST
Q: You say the SNP would put the economic recovery at risk. You are crying wolf, aren't you?
No, says Osborne. There is a very clear choice. We can either get back to work with the Tories, or have a Miliband government that will borrow more. That will lead to higher mortgage rates.
8.11am BST
John Humphrys says they are in a technology park in Nuneaton.
Labour says George Osborne came to the wrong place.
Bad start to the day for Osborne as the boss at the firm he is visiting says his EU policy is dangerous.
8.08am BST
Good morning. I'm taking over from Mark.
7.57am BST
Not strictly campaign news, but it's a big day for politics in east London today, with a high court verdict due in the case of Lutfur Rahman, the Tower Hamlets mayor who is accused of electoral fraud.
7.41am BST
The latest in the Guardian's long reads series on the UK's party leaders is Ian Jack's brilliant profile of Nicola Sturgeon. Here's a snippet of some of the fascinating in-depth biographical detail:
Aged 17, Sturgeon was appointed to the executive of the party's youth wing, the Young Scottish Nationalists. A year later and by now a law student at Glasgow University, she made an early appearance in the media (in fact, in this newspaper) as a critic of the poll tax, which she cited as an example of "how the Scottish people have been disenfranchised". Active in student politics, she helped the Hue and Cry singer and nationalist Pat Kane get elected as university rector. And then, crucially for her personal history, she got to know Alex Salmond during his campaign to win the SNP leadership in 1990, when she played a leading role in the "Youth for Salmond" campaign. "A formidable operator," was how Kathleen Caskie, then working at the SNP's headquarters, remembered her last year to the Guardian's Libby Brooks. "Suddenly there were all these young people wearing Salmond T-shirts - the party was still at 15% [in the polls] and nobody had ever seen that level of organisation for an internal campaign before. That was the stage that her relationship with him cemented."
Brilliant. 'Up the munt', a famous phrase from my home town of Dreghorn has made it into the Guardian! Read more here http://t.co/3eWDhqr25G
Related: The triumph of Nicola Sturgeon | Ian Jack
7.29am BST
The Guardian's Scotland reporter Libby Brooks has sent me this on how the campaign in Scotland looks to be panning out today:
Jim Murphy is back on his Irn Bru crates, in spirit at least (a Labour source tells me that there will be some sort of mobile podium but not necessarily branded with Scotland's favourite fizzy drink, as was Murphy's wont during the referendum campaign when he famously toured the country on a pro-union speaking tour).
Murphy will be holding a street rally in Edinburgh, and will return to two key Labour themes this week: that David Cameron is "playing with fire" by talking up the SNP in an attempt to win votes in England, while the SNP's flagship policy of full fiscal responsibility would lead to "eye watering cuts that would see the end of the UK state pension in Scotland and put the NHS at risk".
7.13am BST
Good morning and welcome to another all-day election chronicle. Today is St George's Day, the annual celebration of England's patron saint. Festivities are typically more muted than the national days allotted to the other home nations, but perhaps election fever could change this; there's been enough Little Englandism around in the campaign coverage so far.
In the absence of honesty in the funding debate it is easy to fall back into pessimism. It's a black hole, we can never afford to, let's ditch the NHS and start again etc. But the NHS is not popular in Britain because the British are mad but because it is readily understood and represents a social solidarity and pooled risk that citizens actively endorse. Whichever system you chose you'd still have to pay more for it. But you really ought to say how.
Because politicians won't talk openly about tax, the case for progressive taxation is never made. The current General Election campaign is a case in point. Because politicians refuse to publicly countenance any increase in income tax, the focus is always on which government departments the next government will slash and by how much.
Not only is this a huge concession to the right (income tax is bad whereas cutting is good) but it also risks leaving politicians open to accusations of breaking their promises if taxes do rise (which they will if the next government is to meet bourgeoning NHS and pension costs). Broken promises also lead to a further diminishment of public trust in politicians.
Is it any wonder that Nicola Sturgeon has caught the public's attention since she is the only party leader openly discussing where she might find common agreement with another party? It may be a clever and strategic ploy on her part to wind up her opponents, but it plays well because it's so radically contrasted with every other main party leader.
These more conventional figures are effectively saying, my party is the only one who'll get you out of this mess and you'd be an idiot not to vote for it.
Related: 'Land of rape and honey': Canada town reconsiders slogan after 55 years
Continue reading...