The parties have softened their rhetoric with regards to UKIP as it back-fired in the past when they've used stronger language. I think the problem is when you label the party as an evil bunch of racists the implication is that you are also labelling UKIP voters in the same way, which isn't helpfull when you're trying to get their votes.

Good point Husker.

Even worse, I think that kind of language made a lot of people that believed there is a problem with immigration, but wouldn't have otherwise voted UKIP, feel that they were the only party for them.

Over the coming weeks I'm going to be looking at the main five parties' manifestos for issues that are outside of the remit of what the media and political establishment consider the 'key battles' - the economy, the NHS, immigration. My aim isn't to grind a political axe, so I'm just going to copy and paste what I find and not give any commentary myself.

First up, drugs. My methodology is simply copying and pasting every pledge they give, so the reason why the Lib Dems have a lot more to say than Labour is because Labour barely mention it.

Conservatives:
• We will support people struggling with addictions and undertake a review into how best to support those suffering from long-term yet treatable conditions, such as drug or alcohol addiction...back in to work.
• On what they’ve already done: ‘We reformed drug treatment so that abstinence and full recovery is the goal, instead of the routine maintenance of people’s addictions with substitute drugs’
• We will introduce widespread random testing of drug use in jails
• We will work with our partners to address threats to UK...[including]... the illegal drugs trade.

Lib Dem:
• Adopt the approach used in Portugal where those arrested for possession of drugs for personal use are diverted into treatment, education or civil penalties that do not attract a criminal record.
• As a first step towards reforming the system, legislate to end the use of imprisonment for possession of drugs for personal use, diverting resources towards tackling organised drug crime instead.
• Continue to apply severe penalties to those who manufacture, import or deal in illegal drugs, and clamp down on those who produce and sell unregulated chemical highs
• Establish a review to assess the effectiveness of the cannabis legalisation experiments in the United States and Uruguay in relation to public health and criminal activity.
• Legislate to make the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs independent in setting the classification of drugs, while remaining accountable to Parliament and the wider public
• Enable doctors to prescribe cannabis for medicinal use
• Put the Department of Health rather than the Home Office in charge of drug policy

Labour:
• We will ensure drug treatment services focus on the root causes of addiction, with proper integration between health, police and local authorities in the commissioning of treatment. And we will ban the sale and distribution of dangerous psychoactive substances, so called ‘legal highs’.

UKIP:
• UKIP believes it is time for a review of what is and what is not a criminal offence and we will commit to such a review, together with a review of commensurate sentencing policy to address the changing nature of crime today. The emphasis of such a review is likely to [include]... drug & substance abuse.
• We will not decriminalise illegal drugs, however we will focus on ensuring drug suppliers, not their victims, face the full force of the law

Green Party:
• We will ‘treat drug addiction as a health problem rather than a crime, making drugs policy the responsibility of the Department of Health in order to ensure that resources are targeted at supporting, not punishing, drug users.
• Adopt an evidence-based approach to the step-by-step regulation, starting with cannabis, of the drugs currently banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act as well as ‘legal highs’, with a view to introducing a system that reduces harms and brings the market under state control as a potential tax revenue generator. A Royal Commission or similar body would be established to review currently controlled drug classifications, within a legalised environment of drug use.
• Improve access to addiction services, including both drugs and alcohol addiction.

I might be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that Labour have never given a peerage and government job to anyone who actually ran a bank that actively helped people evade tax.

You've been at 2+2 too long As pointed it's an attack on voters who support they want and who are unlikely to react well.

Being very cynical the Labour party want to make UKIP sound more credible to the right wingers while trying to defuse the Independence issue which could cost them votes.

basically this. additionally, i think people that are inclined to vote for ukip will tend to be dissatisfied with the current political parties (i certainly am), and are also dissatisfied with the mainstream parties' lines towards europe (labour and lib dem line is obviously lol from where i'm standing, tories are at least promising a referendum, but they also did that for the lisbon treaty, and during the last referendum they offered, they used every bit of exaggeration/scaremongering/lies to maintain the gravy train status quo and there's zero reason to believe they won't do the same again).

i mean it's all moot as i live in the constituency next to osborne, and jimmy savile in a blue rosette would win - not that we've got much better, given that he's just auto-clicked buttons for the government on every single thing, apart from going against gay marriage, complete useless fud compared to the previous guy we had

Wow, the only person I hear at the national level talk like that about drugs is Rand Paul.

And that's pretty weak sauce from Labour.

Has there been any discussion anywhere about what would happen to Farages immigrant wife under a ukip government? I hear she barely speaks English which seems at odds with their shining vision of a racist Britain.

If you aren't British but have some unique skill I think UKIP would still allow entry. This was raised in part due to that discussion.

Unfortunately for Farage the conditions he mentioned where the long hours, in contravention of the EU directives on working hours and his wife putting up with him, which is tantamount to saying he's a bully.

I don't think the criteria he's interested in generally is working long hours unprotected by regulation and being okay with being bullied.

I apply for Irish citizenship the minute that ****er gets anywhere near government but I don't expect this this time round.

I listened to an interview last night on radio 4 with the ukip candidate for Grimsby. She was a straight up lunatic who wouldn't have seemed out of place in one of the unchained conspiracy threads. She almost sounded as crazy as a mainstream US republican. It was pretty interesting if a little scary.

She's got a legit chance of winning by the way. The market has labour at 8/13 and her at 6/4.

In other betting news, the market for PM has really narrowed. Lots of bookies are offering 5/6 Cameron, even money Milliband.

And yes, labour's non discussion of drug policy is pathetic. Don't even have the guts to acknowledge the debate.

They are ****ing bonkers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27151509

UKIP actually expel a racist candidate but allow an election broadcast he was a part of to be broadcast

Using an Irish actor to play the role of an unemployed Brit who's unable to find work because of the foreign invasion. I'm clearly alright with an Irish actor having the job like.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27154700

There's more

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27176803

at least the mainstream media are being fair and balanced and pointing out that labour peer who committed sex offences

I think within a week of the election we will have a labour minority government with snp support. Snp will agree to back all of labours spending pledges and in return the snp will get:

An extensive time wasting enquiry into trident that will take years to complete. Trident has potential to tear the party to pieces with a significant % of labour mps opposed.

Greater autonomy for Scotland

With trident postponed and hs2 cancelled, labour wil be able to save money and spend more on the nhs and education. For all it's talk, this Tory government has not lowered the deficit. We have suffered five years of cuts for nothing when we could've spent our way out.

Things labour should introduce but probably won't:

Higher taxes on landlords
Greater rights for tenants
Punt money on uk research and development. Uk universities are one of britain's trump cards.
Lower bureaucracy on the nhs.
Stop the encroachment of private companies in the nhs. Just because something is private does not make it better.
Introduce limits of bonuses on banks. They get their bonus when the shares are doing well at half time. When they have lost the match, they've already been paid and the government has to pick up the bill.
Stop demonising the poor and vulnerable in out
society.
Renationalise the railways. Just because British rail had it's problems doesn't discredit the entire public ownership of trains, just as just because Eurostar is a success does not mean all private ownership is great.

You can't spend yourself out of debt dude, we just weren't and still are not in a situation where massive borrowing is a good idea . We got into this when labour borrowed during the boom times.

I dont get why taking renters is a good idea. Is this a housing prices thing? Just build more houses by making it easier to do so.

NHS bureaucracy is pretty close to where it needs to be. Its an absolutely massive organisation and having 14% of those costs controlling everything the other 84% is spent on is pretty decent. I mean I'll put it another way, if they could cut out bureaucracy in the NHS further it would have already happened.

The NHS works with lots of private companies. Just because something is public doesn't make it better.

Bonus limits I assume you mean to employees and all that would happen is bonuses get paid another way. Its a dumb moving target to aim at, the kind of populist red meat pool throw at the dumb to buy their votes. Your analogy also sucks.

Stop giving huge subsidies to rail. Let the market solve it.

market only works when there's actual possibility of competition, which'll never work on our rail network. even with huge subsidies many of the fares i use have doubled recently

watching this debate in 15, expect super aids and it to be just people curbstomping the coalition

Sheffield United and UKIP?

Can you tell me a little bit more about yourself? I'd like to confirm a theory I have that you exist to epitomise everything I hate.

Exactly what do you want to know?

Re: debate, sturgeon came off very well again, thought bennett was a lot better

Great so you want more subsidies for your rail travel?

Whatever the solution to trains is propping it up from the public purse isn't the right idea.

Milliband as PM really is the nut low you guys. Especially with Ed Balls and Harriet Harman being a part of the cabinet. Can't believe you all hate Cameron so much. Like I get he's not what you guys like but compared to labour. Damnn..

You are a Rand Paul fan.

Why?

We all benefit from high quality affordable public transport- it's good for the economy, social cohesion, the environment etc. Makes sense the user should pay more but subsidy seems like a good idea.

Except the subsidies are used to prop up the times people are not using the trains.

The idea that near empty trains running in hours few use them is plainly silly. Just seriously cut back on non peak use and subsidise buses which cost less per journey per passenger on non peak times even before you consider the subsidy trains are getting.

Btw bus subsidies have been slashed across the country killing non peak travel despite it being significantly more cost effective than propping up other forms of public transport.

I'm not opposed to subsiding public transport, as a rule, I just think it's clear those subsidies shouldnt be used to run almost (and I assume sometimes completely empty trains late at night across the country.

if they actually collected the fares they were entitled to they wouldn't need more subsidies. like, for example, actually checking tickets on trains after 7pm, which is where casual users will now need to travel to avoid new evening peak fares across much of the north. i'd happily pay more if they could have sufficient capacity at peak times, ideally using rolling stock newer than 30 years old