Its in the mains to see if anyone fancies shopping it, but can't believe they are sticking to this shite line (and expanding on it). Next they'll be squeezing in Caroline Lucas.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
I honestly think if they put up a candidate in every constituency that has a fracking application in and they said they would not go into a coalition unless fracking was immediately stopped and banned then they would win a fair few seats (mainly the nimby constituencys in the posh bits of the countryside) - but they really could be in the mix for coalition partners (especially if she comes off well in the debates and generally she does not come off as a slimey politician so it is probably a good thing for her to be in the debates (A bit like the clegg factor last time)
Reminds me of when the Tories last got voted out.
Their "New Labour, New Danger" campaign. It basically reads "our policies aren't worth promoting, so here's some scare tactics".
Their "New Labour, New Danger" campaign. It basically reads "our policies aren't worth promoting, so here's some scare tactics".
That's probably fair. I think a lot of people are genuinely concerned about fracking for environmental reasons. If you chuck in all the people that are worried about the noise and blots on the landscape then you've probably got a large proportion of voters.
perhaps they are a bit afraid of digging their old ones out incase people actually remember what they said
Thats fair enough - I'm against it for economic reasons myself but it does seem to be an issue for more and more people and an issue that plays well for the Greens so they would be daft not to what's the phrase "weaponise" it
I remember having to write about this quite a bit around 2008-09. Seems a bit quiet these days though, barring the odd deal by L&G. Who did you work for then? Aon, Paternoster, Pru?
I guess the US schemes were even more gung ho on equities than the US causing the liabilities. Thought DB was more a UK thing to be honest with the yanks preferring a DIY 401k style approach?
Not sure about that. Fracking in the UK is all but dead as a concept with the oil price where it is and if people are expecting a new world of $50-80 oil, not sure that is economic here is it? Am not sure many landed gentry types could bring themselves to vote green- they'd be too against all of their other policies and would rather have an oil well in their lawn than give up hunting and the like.
Not quite. On the news this morning, there was a feature on a fracking hearing today in Lancashire. Cuadrilla are obviously still intent on getting their applications through in certain areas.
Probably getting the licences sorted in the hope that the oil price rises, am guessing. It's not a cheap process and am sure they'd need oil to be at least north of $70-80.
Pru... DB is mainly a uk thing but some of the UK companies based in the states set up a similar scheme for employees over there which is mainly what I worked on at the time. - though we did look at getting some of the big US companies to reduce ongoing liabilities as well... GM being one which at the time I was there we thought would never happen
Having said that it finally did... the GM deal first popped up in around 1998 if I remember rightly but the timings were all wrong but that went through not long ago (2012 I think)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/b...uyout-from-general-motors.html?pagewanted=all
June 6, 2012 6:48 pm
Prudential’s GM deal revives annuities
By Ajay Makan in New York
At a stroke last week Prudential Financial resuscitated a slumbering but potentially lucrative corner of the US insurance industry.The company agreed to take on as much as $26bn of pension liabilities from General Motors , for the assets backing the plan and cash payments that could total $3.5bn. The deal reduces the US carmaker’s pension liabilities by about a fifth
By Ajay Makan in New York
At a stroke last week Prudential Financial resuscitated a slumbering but potentially lucrative corner of the US insurance industry.The company agreed to take on as much as $26bn of pension liabilities from General Motors , for the assets backing the plan and cash payments that could total $3.5bn. The deal reduces the US carmaker’s pension liabilities by about a fifth
If completed, the GM transaction would eclipse anything seen before in the market for corporate annuities. The US pension insurance, or buyout, market is less developed than the UK’s. The last such US deal to involve the transfer of more than $1bn in liabilities was in the 1980s, according to Aon Hewitt, a consultancy.
But it could be the tip of the iceberg. With S&P 500 companies facing combined pension liabilities of $1.7tn, according to Credit Suisse, and US states and municipal governments also exposed to defined benefit schemes, some say the dam could be about to burst on such deals.
“This is a watershed moment,” says Rick Jones in the retirement plan division at Aon Hewitt. “The market has been in the doldrums for years but, if others companies follow GM’s lead, it could be worth trillions.”
For Prudential the deal represents the first fruits from setting up a pension risk transfer unit three years ago. The unit has grown to 100 employees, while people who worked on the GM deal say MetLife , American International Group and Principal Financial , among others, are also seeking such deals.
But while the financial crisis left gaping holes in corporate pension plans as the prices of plan assets tumbled, the annuity business has struggled to gain traction.
“Over the past few years especially, US corporations have been keen to transfer pension risk,” said David Zion, head of accounting research at Credit Suisse. “But the key question has been price: with interest rates low and markets volatile, it can cost a lot to offload these long-duration liabilities.”
GM will make payments of up to $4.5bn to its pension plan to fund lump sum payments to retirees who exit the pension scheme, and premiums to Prudential to assume liability for those who stay in the scheme. That will be partly balanced by a narrowing of the funding gap in the company’s pension plan, but the net cost to GM will still be $3bn.
The deal covers all 118,000 of GM’s “salaried”, or white collar, retirees. But GM has a further 400,000 “hourly”, or blue collar, retirees with defined benefits.
Bob Shanks, chief financial officer of Ford Motor , said this week that it had decided not to offload some of its pension liabilities because it did not have sufficient cash once plans for dividends and investments were taken into account.
Another obstacle to the deals is their complexity. Morgan Stanley , the lead adviser on the deal, had been working with GM on pension alternatives since 2010.
Oliver Wyman has been advising the independent fiduciary, which represents members of the pension plan, for at least six months, during which time at least four insurers submitted bids.
Prudential may have to set aside $2bn against the GM pension liabilities, according to Raymond James analysts. That would be equal to the excess capital of Prudential’s US insurance arm at the end of 2011. By comparison, MetLife ended 2011 with $3.5bn and Principal Financial held $1.6bn.
According to a GM filing, both it and Prudential could pull out of the deal before it is set to close at the end of the year if markets deteriorate and increase the total cash required to close the transaction.
Despite these hurdles, insurers are confident the symbolic value of the deal with GM, with total pension liabilities of more than $100bn, will lead others to follow suit.
Dylan Tyson, head of pension risk transfer at Prudential, says his company is in talks with several other large US companies about annuity deals, and expects further agreements this year.
According to Raymond James, even after capital allocations are taken into account, the GM deal could add as much as $200m a year to Prudential’s earnings.
“This [the GM deal] is not something that is going to happen every week,” says Steven Schwartz at Raymond James. “But we will see more deals, and when we do they will be meaningful for insurers’ earnings.”
But it could be the tip of the iceberg. With S&P 500 companies facing combined pension liabilities of $1.7tn, according to Credit Suisse, and US states and municipal governments also exposed to defined benefit schemes, some say the dam could be about to burst on such deals.
“This is a watershed moment,” says Rick Jones in the retirement plan division at Aon Hewitt. “The market has been in the doldrums for years but, if others companies follow GM’s lead, it could be worth trillions.”
For Prudential the deal represents the first fruits from setting up a pension risk transfer unit three years ago. The unit has grown to 100 employees, while people who worked on the GM deal say MetLife , American International Group and Principal Financial , among others, are also seeking such deals.
But while the financial crisis left gaping holes in corporate pension plans as the prices of plan assets tumbled, the annuity business has struggled to gain traction.
“Over the past few years especially, US corporations have been keen to transfer pension risk,” said David Zion, head of accounting research at Credit Suisse. “But the key question has been price: with interest rates low and markets volatile, it can cost a lot to offload these long-duration liabilities.”
GM will make payments of up to $4.5bn to its pension plan to fund lump sum payments to retirees who exit the pension scheme, and premiums to Prudential to assume liability for those who stay in the scheme. That will be partly balanced by a narrowing of the funding gap in the company’s pension plan, but the net cost to GM will still be $3bn.
The deal covers all 118,000 of GM’s “salaried”, or white collar, retirees. But GM has a further 400,000 “hourly”, or blue collar, retirees with defined benefits.
Bob Shanks, chief financial officer of Ford Motor , said this week that it had decided not to offload some of its pension liabilities because it did not have sufficient cash once plans for dividends and investments were taken into account.
Another obstacle to the deals is their complexity. Morgan Stanley , the lead adviser on the deal, had been working with GM on pension alternatives since 2010.
Oliver Wyman has been advising the independent fiduciary, which represents members of the pension plan, for at least six months, during which time at least four insurers submitted bids.
Prudential may have to set aside $2bn against the GM pension liabilities, according to Raymond James analysts. That would be equal to the excess capital of Prudential’s US insurance arm at the end of 2011. By comparison, MetLife ended 2011 with $3.5bn and Principal Financial held $1.6bn.
According to a GM filing, both it and Prudential could pull out of the deal before it is set to close at the end of the year if markets deteriorate and increase the total cash required to close the transaction.
Despite these hurdles, insurers are confident the symbolic value of the deal with GM, with total pension liabilities of more than $100bn, will lead others to follow suit.
Dylan Tyson, head of pension risk transfer at Prudential, says his company is in talks with several other large US companies about annuity deals, and expects further agreements this year.
According to Raymond James, even after capital allocations are taken into account, the GM deal could add as much as $200m a year to Prudential’s earnings.
“This [the GM deal] is not something that is going to happen every week,” says Steven Schwartz at Raymond James. “But we will see more deals, and when we do they will be meaningful for insurers’ earnings.”
As I said I'm against fracking on economic grounds - mainly its currently better to buy energy at the rates it is available than to pay more getting it out of the ground - also as with any new technology if you start in 10 years it will probably be twice as efficient so again more effective to do it then.
You're probably correct, but that won't stop people that aren't directly benefiting (land owners being paid off etc) from being concerned over fracking applications in their areas. Not sure if it'll have enough political sway to win seats outright, but it'll be up towards the top of local concerns when the election candidates go door-to-door.
As a person who is not a citizen of the UK, doesn't live in the UK, and of course can not vote in these elections, let me just say to those who can vote. Have at it. Vote. Don't really care who you vote for, not my place to tell you who to elect to lead your own nation, that is your business. So good luck to you and enjoy your right to vote.
I always vote. My wife never votes and it drives me mad even though it's her right not to. I read somewhere that if someone doesn't vote then that is more or less a vote for the party that is currently in power. I'm not sure though.
Bloody hell, that was a huge deal. Fecking complex area to work in, but kind of interesting to get to nosy around companies' liabilities and what time pension workers there get. Didn't UK companies offered DB to overseas workers but makes sense I guess.
The annuities buyout market is picking up again over here with new individual annuities sales having fallen massively in light of the upcoming changes to retirement rules. It absolutely whacked a number of companies.
Lib Dem political broadcast on. Going to spend this campaign rebuilding the bridges they burnt in the last.
I imagine we'll only be seeing their political broadcasts on Sky Channel 111 in a few years...
Blimey, not quite enough for Labour to govern with a minority government and the SNP promising to stay out of it. But enough for Labour and the SNP to govern together.
Would be a cluster feck for sure.
For the first few - then its just rather mechanical and mathematical in analysing the liability under a range of scenarios I enjoyed working there are we were a very small team at the time but as it started to take off I started to loose interest in it a bit but luckily enough some other interesting opportunities crossed my path.
not sure the snp will win 53 - isnt there only 55 seats in Scotland anyway?
Nah, I'm good.
I don't think i'm registered any place at the moment. Probably won't have sorted it before the election either. Oh well.
Can't you put the Caf as your address?
It's not a UK address i'm struggling for pal.
It's pretty easy and quick, got mine through pretty quickly when I switched constituencies a couple of times - https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
perhaps they are a bit afraid of digging their old ones out incase people actually remember what they said
They didn't cut the NHS though? Labour policy was to cut the NHS and they have actually done so in Wales.
We gloss over any Labour lies or poor policy choices in this thread. Ed is 'weaponising' the NHS remember.
They certainly didn't cut the deficit as much as they said they would though
Eh? Course they did. Reduced it from about 4% increase year on year to 0.1%. That's a cut.
Pensions still offered great tax incentives to savers after the taxing of dividends. Pensions are dying for the same reason wages are stagnent, almost all growth Is being swept up by the top 1%
I don't think you know what a "cut" means. If you have a budget of £100B and it stays at £100B it hasn't been cut, especially when the budgets of all the other departments were actually cut. I'm no fan of the Tories, but to say they cut the NHS Budget is just a lie.
If I give you an £100 a year allowance and a year later you get another £100 from me, you can't claim your allowance was cut because you didn't receive £110.
You would be right except for something fairly obvious you're overlooking. The cost of running the NHS increases each year. You literally have to spend more to deliver exactly the same services.
If you set the 'increase' in funding to the NHS at a rate lower than the increase in the amount it costs to run each year, then every year they get a smaller and smaller percentage of the money they actually need to run it. You have to reduce the amount of services you offer because of the reduction in money you were getting. That's a cut.
Of course the reason the Tories set it at 0.1% increase year on year is so they could claim 'they werent really cutting the NHS' and people would believe them.
You're trying to argue that a failure to increase is a cut in order to make a very partisan point. It's not just the NHS costs that increase every year, it's EVERYTHING involving money through inflation (the value of money itself) and market forces (the price of goods and services as set my the market)
By that argument we (everyone and every organisation) should be talking about everything in terms of cuts that doesn't see above inflation and above costs increases. Yet we're not, because we all recognise how disingenuous that is.
The normal thing is to compare budgets 'in real terms', that is taking inflation into account, as any other comparison is obviously meaningless.
It is people deliberately failing to do so that is disingenous.
Actually it's not at all normal to compare budgets "in real terms" because as I said, you need to take into account a damn sight more factors that just inflation, but market forces. Those are weasel words.
Otherwise what you're saying is that in 2010 when David Cameron promised to ring fence NHS spending and not cut the budget, what he was actually saying was that he'd give a blank cheque to the NHS to cover any inflationary pressures in the economy, increase or discrepancy in costs, or any emergency situations to ensure that services were maintained at their 2010 levels? And you think it would reasonable to take it that way, and more, for ANY politician to make a pledge like that?
Yeah, you're not making petty partisan points or being disingenuous at all are you.... /s
I really don't like the whole Labour guilt trip with the NHS, whipping out the old people etc to make us think about how valuable Labour supposedly are to its protection. The whole 'bloke on the street I met' politics are a bit annoying in general.
I wasn't commenting on Cameron at all, I was pointing out that budgets are normally compared in real terms, that is allowing for inflation.
What a politician decides to pledge is up to them.
Is that a joke?
Source - http://londonfunders.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/23JulyREPORTnhscommissioning_0.pdf
The 'non-cut' the Tories have made will result in a £20 billion shortfall this year in the money needed to continue to run the NHS, a shortfall that would not have existed had the Tories not reduced the money the NHS were getting. That £20Bn shortfall can only be met by getting rid of staff and services. If you want to find a way that this doesn't constitute a cut, go for it.
Not only does that have nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here, but your "source" is just a membership group for those who want to invest in London, and who's reports come with no greater authority than any other report published by any other organisation. That herring of yours is redder than the forum header.
Bringing you back to the point, what Cameron actually said, the only relevant section of your post is this line "the Conservative Party committed to a real time increase in funding of the NHS" which comes without any source at all. Further, it seems to be a confusion of his pledge to ring fence the NHS budget, and then to make sure it's increased every year.
Cameron has done both of those things. The NHS budget hasn't been cut, and is being increased by approximately £100M a year (0.1% of the total).
The only argument being made by you and others like you is both partisan and disingenuous. That Cameron's promise amounts to a commitment to actually increase the budget by whatever is necessary to deal with both inflation and cost pressures to ensure that services are maintained at 2010 levels. Now everyone knows full well that "ring fence" and "not cut" doesn't mean a commitment to increase the budget to maintain certain service levels, and trying to argue that it does is pathetically tribal and deliberately lacking in objectivity.
Scrap Trident, ditch Barnett, reverse the cuts – the price of power for Miliband and Cameron in a hung parliament
With polls predicting another hung parliament, The Telegraph reveals what the SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Ukip and the DUP will demand in return for their support
By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
29 Jan 2015
Two things unify pollsters when asked about the next general election. Firstly, guessing which party will have most seats is a fool's game with the polls so tight. And secondly, smaller parties will likely hold the balance of power come May 8.
With polls pointing to another hung parliament and party aides privately predicting weeks of coalition negotiations, the demands of smaller parties could play a huge role in shaping the next government – yet little is known about what they will prioritise.
To find out, The Telegraph talked to leadership sources at five parties – Ukip, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymra and the DUP – to see what they would demand in return for support.
While red lines are still being drawn out and many demands will be seen as pie in the sky to Labour and the Tories, below provides a clear indication of the battles that lie ahead for Ed Miliband and David Cameron if they fall short of an overall majority.
The Democratic Unionist Party
Nigel Dodds MP, DUP leader in Westminster
Predicted seats: 8
All seat predictions taken from The Independent's recent Poll of Pollsters
Preference: Confidence and supply with either the Tories or Labour (though formal coalitions remain a possibility)
What will the party demand?
Protect Nato defence spending obligation
The right-of-centre party has put much emphasis on the protection of defence spending in recent months. Nigel Dodds, the DUP's leader in Westminster, called on David Cameron to maintain Britain's 2 per cent of GDP defence spending commitment – a Nato obligation – at Prime Minister's Questions this month.
Neither the Tories nor Labour have promised to maintain that level of defence spending throughout the next parliament. Doing so would be a key DUP demand.
Strengthen the Union
Unlike the SNP, which has made a merit of its determination to use any Westminster influence to bring tangible benefits for Scotland, the DUP are highlighting the need to strengthen the UK after the next election. "The Union needs to up its game following the Scottish referendum and the growth of nationalism," said one DUP MP.
"It will not just be about more cash for Northern Ireland. There are issues for the wider UK that we will push for," another leadership source said about their negotiations position, adding: "We believe in a strong Britain." This emphasis on ruling in all of Britain's interest could make the DUP a more palatable bedfellow after the election than the SNP.
Re-engage with the peace process
Months of wrangling in Stormont at the end of last year revealed that generation-old tensions at the heart of Northern Irish politics have not yet disappeared, however far the peace process has dropped down the priority list at Westminster.
So-called "legacy issues" including parades and flags remain a point of major contention at Stormont. The Government's involvement in negotiations before Christmas was publicly criticised by some Northern Irish politicians, not least Sinn Féin. The DUP will be looking for assurances over Westminster's involvement in the continuing peace process in any back-room wrangling after the election.
What they're saying on the record
Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland's First Minister and DUP leader: "I hope that both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have a good election, but not a great election. It allows for greater influence for the smaller parties if there's something to play for after the election."
The Scottish National Party
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister and the SNP leader
Predicted seats: 22
Preference: Confidence and supply with Labour
The SNP have publicly ruled out any deal with the Tories. They would prefer confidence and supply with Labour over a formal coalition amid fears of a backlash from taking up ministerial posts. "Junior parties in a coalition always get decimated – just look at what's happening to the Lib Dems," said one senior SNP source.
What will the party demand?
Immediate review of Trident
Removing Britain's nuclear deterrent from Scottish waters was a central plank of the SNP's recent independence drive. Since losing the referendum last September the party has continued to keep the policy front and centre – it is seen as a calling card to the hard-Left voters who have subsequently joined the SNP in droves – and will be a major demand in post-election negotiations.
While scrapping Trident remains the SNP's long-term goal, there is an acceptance that getting Labour to make such a pledge outright would be tricky. One figure close to the party's election strategy has said they will push for an immediate review on Trident to report back before 2016. It is hoped the move would give Labour the political space to water down its position on Trident.
Devolve control of national insurance
Despite the SNP signing up to the cross-party Smith Commission proposals on further powers, the Nationalists hope to use their new-found Westminster influence after the election to obtain a swathe of extra powers for Holyrood.
With independence off the agenda for now, Home Rule is the party's current aim – the devolution of all powers except foreign policy and defence. However, extra economic powers will be the priority, in particular control over the income tax personal allowance and national insurance contributions.
Protect welfare spending
The SNP used opposition to the Coalition's austerity cuts to great effect in the run-up to the independence vote, painting Labour as complicit by standing side-by-side with the Tories in the pro-UK campaign.
As Nicola Sturgeon moves the SNP left, the party will put protecting Scotland from austerity cuts – in particular on welfare spending and disability benefit – at the centre of its post-election negotiations. Strategists hope the party would be able to hold up tangible wins over Westminster's austerity drive at the 2016 Holyrood elections.
What they're saying on the record
Stewart Hosie MP, SNP deputy leader: "Scotland needs and wants an alternative to austerity cuts, cancellation of the horrendously expensive Trident renewal, the real powers of Home Rule, protection for our oil and gas industry, and safeguarding our place in Europe by ensuring that all four UK nations would have to vote for EU withdrawal before the UK could exit."
UK Independence Party
Nigel Farage, UK Independence Party leader
Predicted seats: 5
Preference: Confidence and supply with the Tories
What will the party demand?
EU referendum in 2015
Holding an In/Out vote on Britain's EU referendum before the end of this year will be the single biggest issue for Ukip if it is invited to the negotiating table. Nigel Farage has not been shy about discussing the demand, floating a July 2015 referendum date at the end of last year and again in recent weeks.
The position contrasts with the Tories, who plan to hold such a vote by the end of 2017 if re-elected. Ukip party insiders say there is no reason why a speedy referendum could not be arranged, pointing to how the Coalition held a referendum on the Alternative Vote within a year of the 2010 election. Ukip also want ministers to be given the freedom to campaign for leaving the EU.
Stronger recall powers
"It would be difficult to have confidence in any government – Labour or Conservative – that was not willing to bring about serious political reform," said Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP who defected from the Conservatives, over the weekend. "Parliament would have to be made properly accountable, with a proper recall mechanism."
What they're saying on the record
Nigel Farage, Ukip leader: “It is very unlikely to think of Ukip joining a Coalition. I don’t think the lure of a ministerial car is the reason that I got into politics ... We could potentially do a deal with Mr Cameron on this but not unless the timing and the terms of the referendum were right.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iliband-and-Cameron-in-a-hung-parliament.html
With polls predicting another hung parliament, The Telegraph reveals what the SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Ukip and the DUP will demand in return for their support
By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
29 Jan 2015
Two things unify pollsters when asked about the next general election. Firstly, guessing which party will have most seats is a fool's game with the polls so tight. And secondly, smaller parties will likely hold the balance of power come May 8.
With polls pointing to another hung parliament and party aides privately predicting weeks of coalition negotiations, the demands of smaller parties could play a huge role in shaping the next government – yet little is known about what they will prioritise.
To find out, The Telegraph talked to leadership sources at five parties – Ukip, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymra and the DUP – to see what they would demand in return for support.
While red lines are still being drawn out and many demands will be seen as pie in the sky to Labour and the Tories, below provides a clear indication of the battles that lie ahead for Ed Miliband and David Cameron if they fall short of an overall majority.
The Democratic Unionist Party
Nigel Dodds MP, DUP leader in Westminster
Predicted seats: 8
All seat predictions taken from The Independent's recent Poll of Pollsters
Preference: Confidence and supply with either the Tories or Labour (though formal coalitions remain a possibility)
What will the party demand?
Protect Nato defence spending obligation
The right-of-centre party has put much emphasis on the protection of defence spending in recent months. Nigel Dodds, the DUP's leader in Westminster, called on David Cameron to maintain Britain's 2 per cent of GDP defence spending commitment – a Nato obligation – at Prime Minister's Questions this month.
Neither the Tories nor Labour have promised to maintain that level of defence spending throughout the next parliament. Doing so would be a key DUP demand.
Strengthen the Union
Unlike the SNP, which has made a merit of its determination to use any Westminster influence to bring tangible benefits for Scotland, the DUP are highlighting the need to strengthen the UK after the next election. "The Union needs to up its game following the Scottish referendum and the growth of nationalism," said one DUP MP.
"It will not just be about more cash for Northern Ireland. There are issues for the wider UK that we will push for," another leadership source said about their negotiations position, adding: "We believe in a strong Britain." This emphasis on ruling in all of Britain's interest could make the DUP a more palatable bedfellow after the election than the SNP.
Re-engage with the peace process
Months of wrangling in Stormont at the end of last year revealed that generation-old tensions at the heart of Northern Irish politics have not yet disappeared, however far the peace process has dropped down the priority list at Westminster.
So-called "legacy issues" including parades and flags remain a point of major contention at Stormont. The Government's involvement in negotiations before Christmas was publicly criticised by some Northern Irish politicians, not least Sinn Féin. The DUP will be looking for assurances over Westminster's involvement in the continuing peace process in any back-room wrangling after the election.
What they're saying on the record
Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland's First Minister and DUP leader: "I hope that both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have a good election, but not a great election. It allows for greater influence for the smaller parties if there's something to play for after the election."
The Scottish National Party
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister and the SNP leader
Predicted seats: 22
Preference: Confidence and supply with Labour
The SNP have publicly ruled out any deal with the Tories. They would prefer confidence and supply with Labour over a formal coalition amid fears of a backlash from taking up ministerial posts. "Junior parties in a coalition always get decimated – just look at what's happening to the Lib Dems," said one senior SNP source.
What will the party demand?
Immediate review of Trident
Removing Britain's nuclear deterrent from Scottish waters was a central plank of the SNP's recent independence drive. Since losing the referendum last September the party has continued to keep the policy front and centre – it is seen as a calling card to the hard-Left voters who have subsequently joined the SNP in droves – and will be a major demand in post-election negotiations.
While scrapping Trident remains the SNP's long-term goal, there is an acceptance that getting Labour to make such a pledge outright would be tricky. One figure close to the party's election strategy has said they will push for an immediate review on Trident to report back before 2016. It is hoped the move would give Labour the political space to water down its position on Trident.
Devolve control of national insurance
Despite the SNP signing up to the cross-party Smith Commission proposals on further powers, the Nationalists hope to use their new-found Westminster influence after the election to obtain a swathe of extra powers for Holyrood.
With independence off the agenda for now, Home Rule is the party's current aim – the devolution of all powers except foreign policy and defence. However, extra economic powers will be the priority, in particular control over the income tax personal allowance and national insurance contributions.
Protect welfare spending
The SNP used opposition to the Coalition's austerity cuts to great effect in the run-up to the independence vote, painting Labour as complicit by standing side-by-side with the Tories in the pro-UK campaign.
As Nicola Sturgeon moves the SNP left, the party will put protecting Scotland from austerity cuts – in particular on welfare spending and disability benefit – at the centre of its post-election negotiations. Strategists hope the party would be able to hold up tangible wins over Westminster's austerity drive at the 2016 Holyrood elections.
What they're saying on the record
Stewart Hosie MP, SNP deputy leader: "Scotland needs and wants an alternative to austerity cuts, cancellation of the horrendously expensive Trident renewal, the real powers of Home Rule, protection for our oil and gas industry, and safeguarding our place in Europe by ensuring that all four UK nations would have to vote for EU withdrawal before the UK could exit."
UK Independence Party
Predicted seats: 5
Preference: Confidence and supply with the Tories
What will the party demand?
EU referendum in 2015
Holding an In/Out vote on Britain's EU referendum before the end of this year will be the single biggest issue for Ukip if it is invited to the negotiating table. Nigel Farage has not been shy about discussing the demand, floating a July 2015 referendum date at the end of last year and again in recent weeks.
The position contrasts with the Tories, who plan to hold such a vote by the end of 2017 if re-elected. Ukip party insiders say there is no reason why a speedy referendum could not be arranged, pointing to how the Coalition held a referendum on the Alternative Vote within a year of the 2010 election. Ukip also want ministers to be given the freedom to campaign for leaving the EU.
Stronger recall powers
"It would be difficult to have confidence in any government – Labour or Conservative – that was not willing to bring about serious political reform," said Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP who defected from the Conservatives, over the weekend. "Parliament would have to be made properly accountable, with a proper recall mechanism."
What they're saying on the record
Nigel Farage, Ukip leader: “It is very unlikely to think of Ukip joining a Coalition. I don’t think the lure of a ministerial car is the reason that I got into politics ... We could potentially do a deal with Mr Cameron on this but not unless the timing and the terms of the referendum were right.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iliband-and-Cameron-in-a-hung-parliament.html
The Green Party
Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader
Predicted seats: 1
Preference: Vote-by-vote agreement with Labour
What will the party demand?
Scrap the nuclear deterrent
The Greens want not just to scrap Trident but ensure there is no nuclear deterrent of any form in its place. "That would be a boost to growing global efforts towards a nuclear weapons ban and be in line with our obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to pursue nuclear disarmament," one senior source said.
Reverse the Coalition's benefit cuts
Benefits and public sector pay should be returned to 2010 levels, the party will demand. "We will particularly focus on single parents who've been hugely hit by austerity," says one source. The Greens will also push to stop the planned scrapping of the Independent Living Fund, which supports around 18,000 disabled Britons.
Fund a "revolution" in home energy
The next government must kick-start a nationwide drive to boost the energy efficiency in homes, the Greens will say in any post-election negotiations. Among possible proposals include introducing a carbon emissions tax and giving grants to 2 million low-income households to improve their energy efficiency.
What they're saying on the record
Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader: "We would not prop up a Tory government. If after the election there were a Labour or Labour-led coalition or minority government would look to operate on vote-by-vote level to provide stable government."
Plaid Cymru
Elfyn Llwyd MP, Plaid Cymru's Westminster group leader
Predicted seats: 3
Preference: Confidence and supply with Labour
Plaid have previously done deals with Labour in the 1970s over more powers for Wales and the Tories in the early 1990s over Europe.
What will the party demand?
Scrap the Barnett formula
Wales has been losing out for decades under Barnett, Plaid Cymru believes. The region gets an estimated £400 million a year less than it should compared to payouts to other regions, according the party. Scrapping the outdated formula and replacing it with a new "needs-based" division of Westminster cash will be a central demand if they are to support a Miliband premiership.
Protect police from cuts
"There would have to be a break on austerity," says one source close to the leadership. "We realise that you've got to balance the books but it must go far, far slower and it mustn't always amount to jobs in the public sector going." In particular Plaid will demand the police budget is protected and local councils are given better funding packages.
Ditch Trident
Like the SNP and the Greens, Plaid have a long-standing opposition to Trident. "It is wasteful showboating in our view," says a senior source. "It is completely passé. That was the defence policy of the 1960s when we all thought that Cuba was going to blow up. Today it is nonsense."
Whether Labour will play ball is another question. The same source is holding out hope, however: "It depends how hungry they are for government. If they are hungry they will reconsider."
What they're saying on the record
Elfyn Llwyd MP, Plaid Cymru's Westminster group leader: "We wouldn't work with the Conservatives. But we would be prepared, in the best interests of Wales, to work with the Labour Party or any other parties who might be drawn in."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iliband-and-Cameron-in-a-hung-parliament.html
Predicted seats: 1
Preference: Vote-by-vote agreement with Labour
What will the party demand?
Scrap the nuclear deterrent
The Greens want not just to scrap Trident but ensure there is no nuclear deterrent of any form in its place. "That would be a boost to growing global efforts towards a nuclear weapons ban and be in line with our obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to pursue nuclear disarmament," one senior source said.
Reverse the Coalition's benefit cuts
Benefits and public sector pay should be returned to 2010 levels, the party will demand. "We will particularly focus on single parents who've been hugely hit by austerity," says one source. The Greens will also push to stop the planned scrapping of the Independent Living Fund, which supports around 18,000 disabled Britons.
Fund a "revolution" in home energy
The next government must kick-start a nationwide drive to boost the energy efficiency in homes, the Greens will say in any post-election negotiations. Among possible proposals include introducing a carbon emissions tax and giving grants to 2 million low-income households to improve their energy efficiency.
What they're saying on the record
Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader: "We would not prop up a Tory government. If after the election there were a Labour or Labour-led coalition or minority government would look to operate on vote-by-vote level to provide stable government."
Plaid Cymru
Predicted seats: 3
Preference: Confidence and supply with Labour
Plaid have previously done deals with Labour in the 1970s over more powers for Wales and the Tories in the early 1990s over Europe.
What will the party demand?
Scrap the Barnett formula
Wales has been losing out for decades under Barnett, Plaid Cymru believes. The region gets an estimated £400 million a year less than it should compared to payouts to other regions, according the party. Scrapping the outdated formula and replacing it with a new "needs-based" division of Westminster cash will be a central demand if they are to support a Miliband premiership.
Protect police from cuts
"There would have to be a break on austerity," says one source close to the leadership. "We realise that you've got to balance the books but it must go far, far slower and it mustn't always amount to jobs in the public sector going." In particular Plaid will demand the police budget is protected and local councils are given better funding packages.
Ditch Trident
Like the SNP and the Greens, Plaid have a long-standing opposition to Trident. "It is wasteful showboating in our view," says a senior source. "It is completely passé. That was the defence policy of the 1960s when we all thought that Cuba was going to blow up. Today it is nonsense."
Whether Labour will play ball is another question. The same source is holding out hope, however: "It depends how hungry they are for government. If they are hungry they will reconsider."
What they're saying on the record
Elfyn Llwyd MP, Plaid Cymru's Westminster group leader: "We wouldn't work with the Conservatives. But we would be prepared, in the best interests of Wales, to work with the Labour Party or any other parties who might be drawn in."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iliband-and-Cameron-in-a-hung-parliament.html