Far from the campaign trail... is decent politics to be drowned out by the vilest common denominator?

The news that Jack Monroe has quit Twitter due to homophobic abuse is just another depressing event in what has felt like a descent into a world where too many of the voices you hear are unpleasant ones.

And no, I don't want to suggest that people who disagree with me are unpleasant. Yes, some of them are, but they can't be categorised as simply political opponents. But, below the line in virtually every newspaper, there seems to be a never ending stream of vile abuse towards anyone and everyone who dares to put their head above the parapet to espouse a view that they believe in.

But, and let's face it, such people are hardly discouraged from their belief that rudeness and crudeness are perfectly acceptable ways to treat their fellow human beings. Journalists who write snide comments picking on the imperfections of politicians, politicians who lie about their opponents or wilfully misrepresent them, members of the public who express a view that all politicians are 'in it for themselves', regardless of whether they have any evidence or not, all of them debase our political culture.

And it's worse in the case of such politicians and journalists, because they know exactly what they are doing. By encouraging the likes of Guido Fawkes to do their dirty work for them, or by ridiculing anyone who expresses doubt or hesitation, or even does a little free thinking, they send out a clear message that it is open season on the naive, the thoughtful, the non-partisan. No wonder that politicians attempt to control how they are presented - a foolish notion in any event, but perhaps understandable.

Indeed, I now find myself wondering why anyone thinking of entering into politics would even think twice. Why set yourself up to be abused by the stupid, the evil and the callous when you could live a quiet life, have a decent career and travel entirely under the radar? You and your family get a private life, nobody except your boss expects you to justify yourself and, eventually, you get to enjoy the fruits of your labour without hassle or insult.

There is an obvious problem, I accept. If everyone who has feelings opts out of politics, you leave it to those more fanatical, less caring of what others say or think. One shudders to think of the likely outcome of such a turn of events.

To make matters worse, such behaviour is now targeted at public figures generally. If you are a celebrity, one might at least hope that the financial rewards make up for it (they probably don't), but for those in public life generally, it is another disincentive to serve the wider public. I suspect that the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is avoiding the internet and social media, given her decision on whether to prosecute Greville Janner or not. I don't know whether or not her decision was the right one, but she will have weighed up all of the evidence available before making the decision not to proceed. She will, however, be being abused by people who haven't seen the evidence, and wouldn't care even if they had. And they will be encouraged by the attitude of the Fifth Estate.

No, it's been a deeply depressing General Election campaign, and whilst I know that there are plenty of good, decent people campaigning for what they believe in, nobody is covering that...

Tax, especially domicile and residence, can be quite taxing, it seems...

The increasingly bewildering debate about non-domiciled individuals and their taxation has dominated the past twenty-four hours or so. Bewildering because, for the most part, those doing the arguing only have a vague idea as to the technicalities involved. Now, before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm being somehow patronising, I should point out that this part of the UK tax regime is pretty complex, as are the implications. So, perhaps a little context would help...

I'll start with the simple stuff. If you are domiciled outside of the UK for tax purposes, then any income you receive outside the UK is only taxable in the UK if you remit it to the UK. That doesn't mean that it isn't taxed, necessarily. It may be taxed in the country it arises in, depending on their tax regime. You might reasonably assume though that, if it is worth paying HMRC a chunk of money to retain your non-domiciled status, there is a financial advantage in doing so.

So, in simple terms, the abolition of non-domiciled status, assuming that everybody stays where they are, would raise additional revenue. How much depends on where the money is held, how much there is, what is earned on it in terms of income and how much tax is already paid in the jurisdiction concerned. Remember, if tax is deducted abroad, and there is a Double Taxation Agreement in place, that tax is deducted from the liability in the UK. For the record, the UK has Double Taxation Agreements in place than virtually any, if not every, other developed nation.

So, that's the tangible, theoretically measurable stuff. It is complicated by questions of capital appreciation, outright evasion and banking/corporate secrecy, but the latter is less of an issue than it was, due to increasing international co-operation and transparency.

The intangible is, of course, how abolishing non-domicile status would impact on the behaviour of individuals. There are those who will argue that removing tax advantages may lead to some individuals establishing tax residence elsewhere - it probably will if the incentive to do so is strong enough. But, just as it is difficult to work out the fiscal benefits in terms of potential revenue gains, it is impossible to calculate how many high wealth individuals might up sticks and leave, or the fiscal impact of them doing so.

In truth, the retention of non-domicile is as much a principle as it is potentially a revenue raiser. If you are driven by a desire for equality of treatment, then abolition is probably a given. If financial prudence is your priority though, you might (and I only say might) want to look elsewhere.

It is perhaps a truism, but nonetheless, getting elected is one thing, governing is quite another. I fear that, in the ongoing debate, that concept has been somewhat overlooked...

All quiet on the Mid Suffolk front...

Just fifty-eight days until polling day - we've got Parliamentary, District and Parish elections here in Creeting St Peter. Admittedly, you'd probably never know it if you were relying on one of the political parties telling you. Apart from during last year's European elections, not a leaflet of any sort has come to our home, although our District councillor may deign to pay us a visit from Eye one of these days (I'm not counting on it though...).

It shouldn't come as a surprise, really. Four years ago, despite my doing everything in my power to attract attention (what do you mean, Mark? You were delivering what? Leaflets?...), the Conservatives waited until the last four weeks before bothering to tell anyone what their councillor had done - not much, as it turned out. The year before, we had received some beautiful leaflets urging us to vote for Dr Dan Poulter. The fact that we weren't in his constituency appeared to have passed them by... although he would have been far better than David Ruffley...

In truth, this is the sort of place where democracy is relatively notional. There is little organised opposition to the Conservatives, and it becomes harder to envisage much as political parties dwindle in terms of their capacity to campaign. Rural campaigning is, in any event, more labour intensive and incumbents, especially Conservative ones, come with an inbuilt advantage. Unless someone breaks with the normal pattern whereby little happens between elections, inertia tends to be the order of the day.

At Parish level, we have five councillors in situ, and presuming that they want to continue, it is unlikely that we will have an election at all. That said, in the unlikely event that we had one, nobody would campaign anyway.

I'm going to have to seek excitement somewhere else, I guess...

A transport of derision, and why I feel sorry for Harriet Harman...

Gosh, there's a lot of fuss been made over a pink (or is it magenta) minibus this week. Anyone would think that it was a scandal, or that a General Election was only eighty-four days away...

From the perspective of someone with some sense of how you get attention, a bright colour that stands out from its surroundings is usually quite a good idea. And how many pink/magenta vehicles have you seen lately? So, in that sense, the colour is quite a good choice. Cliched? Well, yes, if you think in cliches, but isn't the content of those policies which Labour think will appeal to women voters rather more important than the colour of the bus? And, if you find the concept of "women's issues" patronising or insulting, and I know a lot of people who see it that way, why not argue that instead? And again, yes, I know that a lot of good people, some of whom I consider friends, are doing just that.

No, my ire is focused on the media, whose inability (for the most part) to address, or even recognise, the issues means that a campaign which will determine so much of our country's future will come down to a contest to avoid so-called gaffes, trumpet simplistic soundbites and evade most of the questions that the more thoughtful of us would rather like answered.

In the midst of all of this fuss about a bus, Harriet Harman stands, attempting to retain some gravitas. I am, I admit, not a fan. She reminds me in many ways of Hillary Clinton when she ran for the United States Senate - quite competent but not apparently grasping the concept of empathy. She also seems unable to convey a sense of humour, which all of us occasionally need. But, and this is an important 'but', she is potentially an influential person in our future politics. What she thinks, and why, is perhaps more useful to understand than what she feels about the colour of a bus.

And wouldn't it be nice to hear her explain why those issues that the Labour Party have defined, for whatever reason, as being most relevant to women, are more relevant, and why attention to them should influence, or repel women voters? I'm not a woman, and I'd be intrigued to be offered another perspective that might help me to take a broader view of the issues, especially those I know less about. I fear that it may be too much to ask though.

It doesn't get any better, this campaign, does it?...

Be afraid, be very afraid?

So, who, or what, am I supposed to be scared of this week?

Well, obviously, Greeks bearing gifts for one thing. Syriza's triumph in yesterday's election means that the Eurozone will experience a massive loss of confidence, plagues of locusts will sweep up through the Balkans and the European Union will then collapse.

Or, more likely, someone will point out to the new administration that, if you don't pay your debts, nobody will lend you any money. Talk to the Argentine government about what that means, why don't you? And without more money, you can't fulfil your promises. Oh, and by the way, take a look at Francois Hollande and his renunciation of austerity - because that worked so well. I'm guessing that this will not end well.

I should, it seems, also be afraid of a Labour/SNP coalition, according to David Cameron and Grant Shapps. Now that the SNP have said that they will vote in certain matters only pertaining to England, or England and Wales, we can look forward to the constitutional vortex that will be a political party with no policy on non-Scottish, non-federal matters having to make decisions on the basis of the consequential impact on Scottish services. It might be an extremely effective way of persuading the English that they would rather cut the Scots adrift, but with oil at under $50 a barrel, that might not be great timing.

That said, the sheer fascination of watching what happens when a Labour/SNP coalition have to cut services, get tough on welfare and savage local government would be huge, whilst at the same time ghastly for all concerned. Also, the rapid disenchantment of those people who apparently believe that the Labour Party is going to undo all the cuts of the past five years will be massive. See, we told you that it was difficult, and you didn't want to believe us.

We would also find out just how left-wing the SNP are (or aren't), which will come as a shock to a number of people.

It was once said that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that there is little to fear but fear spread by politicians with nothing positive to say about their own policies. There are 101 days until polling day...

Are Labour beginning to fret about the Greens?

I don't follow vast numbers of Twitter feeds, predominantly because it gets harder for me to pick up the important bits as the volume of posts gets bigger. I do, however, follow two of my local Labour PPCs, Jane Basham in South Suffolk, and Deborah Sacks in South Norfolk. Deborah is an old university colleague from my days at UEA, and another North London emigre in rural East Anglia.

Jane, on the other hand, I first encountered when she ran as the Labour candidate for Suffolk's Police and Crime Commissioner. She very nearly won, something of a miracle given just how conservative the county is. Since then, her Twitter feed has become a distillation of what grassroots Labour activists are thinking, and very entertaining it is too.

In the past week, I've noticed that there are an increasing number of anti-Green posts, mostly retweets from others, but nonetheless, attacks all the same. The record of the minority Green administration in Brighton (if they're a minority, how have they remained in control?), the impracticality of their policies, the risk that a Green vote will let the Tories back in, all are fair game all of a sudden.

And I am reminded that Labour really don't like competition for what they see as the progressive vote that should be theirs, even if, in recent years, they have given people little reason to have faith. Civil libertarians have been let down by authoritarians such as David Blunkett and Jack Straw, and had, until the Coalition, found a home in the Liberal Democrats. Now, anti-austerity supporters are discovering that Labour have no intention of undoing the 'evil' cuts carried out by the Coalition, and so whilst Labour are probably hanging onto the former Liberal Democrat voters they won in 2010 and 2011, they are now losing some of those who thought that they were an anti-austerity party.

For the Greens, life is easy. They can wave the anti-austerity banner, knowing that it will gain them votes and supporters, in the certain knowledge that they won't actually have to take responsibility at any stage. In fairness, some of their activists genuinely believe that austerity is unnecessary, and that taxing the rich until they squeal is viable in a global economy where capital is highly mobile, but they aren't going to form a government.

And given the diet of statements from Labour politicians saying, "this cut is unacceptable and unfair, and we wouldn't do it", an expectation has been created that Labour will somehow preserve services without raising taxes very much and reducing the deficit at the same time. Anyone who believes that is pretty naive, and the Greens now offer an alternative for such people who increasingly believe that Labour can't.

So, prepare for more red on green attacks if Green polling numbers remain significant, as Labour realise that, without a positive agenda of their own, even the so-called "35% strategy" is vulnerable. Their only consolation is that the Conservatives appear to want to revert to picking on the 'enemy inside', thus driving moderates away.

It's going to be a grim four months...

Yes, let's have the Greens in the TV debates...

The news that David Cameron is insisting that, unless the Greens are included, he won't be taking part in the TV debates, is almost amusing. It is highly unlikely that he cares about the Greens very much - after all, he allegedly thinks that environmentally friendly policies are just so much 'green crap' - rather that it is a strategy to either avoid the debates altogether (can he possibly be frit of Ed Miliband or, more credibly, Nigel Farage?) or, more Machiavellian, he wants the Greens in to potentially leach support from Labour.

I've always taken the view with campaigns that, if you invite all of the candidates, giving them reasonable notice, a failure to show is your problem, not that of the organiser or the other candidates. There should be a risk in leaving your chair empty. And, making an assumption that nobody would possibly dare to carry on without the Prime Minister is, in an era where deference is anything but a given, highly risky.

There are some potential setbacks with increasing the number of participants, regardless of who they might be;

1. You need longer to fit a decent number of questions in - the attention span of the public is not brilliant, and the more broadly similar answers you get, the less enlightening it is likely to become.
2. The debate is harder to manage - both presenter and candidates have to very disciplined lest the debate deteriorate into people talking over each other.
3. It becomes harder to exclude increasingly smaller parties.

For the record, I tend to think that exposure to cross-examination might not be that helpful to the Greens or UKIP, in that their arguments are likely to be exposed for their weakness in a way that the media seem mostly unable, or unwilling to do.

But, I may be wrong, and the public deserve to have an opportunity to hear from the Greens, because that's how democracy works...

Oh God, are we really going to have to endure four months of this?

Which twin is the Tory?

As I watch domestic politics descend into its regular pre-election contest to see who can offer voters the most 'stuff' in return for the least pain, I do find myself wondering, "where is the vision?". Is it unfair of me to suggest that responding to the media agenda tends to lead to the very worst excesses of short-termism?

This election, in particular, offers the prospect of demands for legislative action on a vast range of issues and attempts to claim that, despite an acknowledgement that the deficit must, and will be, eliminated over the next five years, you, yes you, Mr and Mrs Robinson, won't feel a thing. Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, you are being lied to. It will hurt, and you will lose things that you value. Whether you need those things is another matter...

The Tories are off to a flyer, accusing Labour of a black hole in their calculations, fiercely denied by Labour, whilst Labour accuse the Tories of taking us back to the 1930s. Well, no, of course neither of them are planning to do what the other accuses them of.

Firstly, both parties are committed to reducing the deficit. The Conservatives have sworn to run a surplus by the end of a five year parliament, Labour to borrow only for investment. To do either involves either cutting spending, raising taxes, or, more likely, a bit of both. Both parties favour a predominance of spending cuts, the difference being that the Conservatives appear to be relying solely on cuts, Labour have stated that "the broadest shoulders should bear some of the burden".

So, Labour will raise some taxes, for some people. The Conservatives will cut services, as will Labour. This is not rocket science, but appears to be being denounced as if it were revelatory.

The Liberal Democrats are, it seems, somewhere between the two, although given that we have little idea what either Labour or the Conservatives will actually do, that's not entirely helpful. "More caring than the Conservatives, more responsible than Labour" makes a good slogan, though it might not be entirely informative or even convincing.

As for the rest, they're mostly against sin, or immigrants, or in the case of UKIP, both (although UKIP appear to be quite good at sinning and then claiming that it's just one bad apple so why are we picking on them?).

It's going to be a really long four months, isn't it?...

Is a Conservative/Labour grand coalition actually a serious runner?

Only two days ago, I rather rashly ruled out a Conservative/Labour coalition as almost too absurd to take seriously. And yet, Ian Birrell, writing in the Guardian yesterday, is suggesting that it might be a credible possibility. He, of course, is paid for his opinion, whereas I am not, so one ought to do him the courtesy of giving him a hearing, even if the 'below the line' comment is almost entirely negative, often offensively so (plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...).

He suggests that, rather than yield to a constitutional crisis, the two big parties could come to an arrangement...

A government of national unity between Labour and the Conservatives may sound far-fetched, especially amid the froth and fury of a nascent election campaign. It would certainly be tricky, exacerbating internal divisions and leading to more defections. Yet, while there are serious disagreements, the two parties have more in common with each other than with the insurgents on many key issues – especially if David Cameron survived and Miliband was replaced by someone such as Chuka Umunna.

It may well be that the two parties have a lot of common ground - the deficit, a desire to control from the centre, a surprisingly similar world view on the welfare system, a general lack of regard for civil liberties, but I don't believe that it is as encompassing as Ian would have us believe.

For political parties are not just about the politicians in Westminster, they are about activists and members, about donors and deliverers. Labour has increased its membership on the basis that it opposes the Coalition's austerity, but could it hold onto them in coalition with the hated Tories? Not very likely? Could the unions give money to a Labour Party almost certainly promoting further cuts in public spending which will self-evidently impact on their members? One must surely believe that Labour strategists, having seen what happened to the Liberal Democrats, would be astonishingly wary of committing organisational suicide in such a manner. And if not, they must be either very naive or truly, heroically, optimistic.

From a Conservative perspective, one could reasonably expect a hemorrhaging of members, activists and councillors to UKIP, for could an in/out referendum on Europe be granted by Labour? Indeed, would the Conservative aim to shrink the size of the State be stymied by the need to get Labour MPs from the North, Scotland and Wales onside?

It all seems highly unlikely. Admittedly, one does get the impression sometimes that the one key thing that both Labour and Conservative politicians have in common is a mutual hatred for Liberal Democrats, but that's hardly enough, is it?

He does appear to be an optimist, when he suggests that;

Regardless of the personalities and positions, however, the two parties could start to hammer out those huge issues confronting the nation that conventional politics seems incapable of solving. These include the creation of a modern political system, the resolution of Britain’s haphazard drift into federalism and a workable funding solution to save the creaking NHS.

I'm sorry, but why should the two prime beneficiaries of the current political system want to change it. Labour benefit from the current arrangements very well indeed, needing less votes to gain an overall majority than the Conservatives do, whilst first past the post makes it very difficult for new parties to break through and discourages defection to other parties.

And, Mr Birrell, what's so bad about federalism anyway? The problem is not federalism itself, it is the inability of Labour or Conservatives to actually give any meaningful thought to the opportunities and challenges of relinquishing central control over so many aspects of our lives. Besides, they rather promised it when they rushed to Scotland in the dying days of the referendum campaign to make The Vow.

As for the NHS, funding is not the whole of the problem. Structure is key too. What services can/should the State provide, and how do you design a system that adjusts to changing pressures over time? Throwing money at it doesn't appear to have helped as much as it might have been expected to, and, as I recall, we still don't have any.

So, whilst on consideration, one should never rule out anything, I still see a Grand Coalition as a fairly unlikely option after 7 May. On the other hand, after a second inconclusive election...

In the event of a hung parliament, please break glass...

It is interesting to watch as the Westminster village turns its thoughts to what would happen in the event of an inconclusive result on May 7th. There is talk of a second election, of possible coalitions involving the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Scottish Nationalists and the Democratic Unionists - sorry Greens and Plaid Cymru, but there just aren't going to be enough of you to be decisive, I fear.

I have, to some extent, written off the first election as leading to a hung Parliament. So, what might happen?

• Conservative/UKIP coalition - unlikely to get enough seats to form an administration, and even if they just scraped together enough seats, could it ever be stable? We still really know what UKIP stand for on so much of the spectrum of government activity. All we do know is that they don't want to be unpopular. How much in the way of cuts is required, Nigel?

• Conservative/Democratic Unionist coalition - see above, but add on a new leisure centre/hospital/nice thing for Belfast/Derry/Coleraine/insert name of Ulster town here if the Conservatives really want something badly.

• Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition - they hate us, we've given up enough with the MPs we have now. With less MPs, what could we really hope to get that would make the pain worth it?

• Labour/SNP coalition - what's in it for the SNP? Independence couldn't be on the cards unless it was part of a package of radical constitutional reform to protect Labour in England. Electoral reform at Westminster and for local government to prevent Conservative majorities in a rump United Kingdom would surely be a minimum, and I can't see Labour having the courage, or the imagination, to do that. They might do it in order to be in power though. I, for one, would look forward to seeing how Labour's recent membership recruits accept the painful cuts that such an administration would have to make.

• Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition - are there going to be enough of us to make this work, and even if there were, do Labour understand the idea of sharing power? I'm not convinced, frankly. Indeed, I can see a scenario whereby we go into coalition with them, and they then seek to blame us for the cuts that follow.

• Labour/SNP/Liberal Democrat coalition - after the unpleasantness that surrounded the referendum campaign last year, could three parties that were so vitriolic towards each other really work together reliably? On the other hand, having two junior partners might bring home the reality of coalition to the Labour leadership. And then, perhaps, you could get the constitutional reform referred to above.

• Conservative/Labour coalition - don't laugh, after all, just how much difference is there between the two parties on some of the main issues? But seriously, if you thought that David Cameron made a big offer to the Liberal Democrats in 2010...

So, a sceptic might suggest that none of the coalition options are likely to be stable and acceptable to the parties concerned. And that means a second General Election, as the politicians say to the Great British Public, "Try again and give us a result that works this time.".

And, in the event that the voters produce another inconclusive result, what happens next?

That, folks, is the question that nobody really wants to have to address, leaving us with four months of campaigning where the minor parties will be talking about red lines for coalition and the two major parties will be trying really hard not to talk about coalitions until forced to.

It would be ironic, would it not, if 'first past the post' produced an outcome that was even more unstable than the worst outcomes of proportional representation...