Simon, in dealing with the reasons why you feel Labour lost the election (which should not be taken that any other party won), I would reply:

(1) Labour was accused of only representing the working class, it needed to modernise which accounts for why it swept to power in a far more impressive way than how Cameron got over the threshold of number 10.

(2) The press have a mind of their own, they were very pro-labour after 18 years of the Tories. The papers will turn against the coalition once they realise how their sales plummet when the true impact is felt.

(3) Granted, but the Tories didn't do a great deal either did they?

(4) Let's not forget the banks were in charge of their own lending decisions and loved handing out the cash because it led to very lucrative business. It's also worthy of a mention that consumer lending hadn't been reformed until 2006 (under Labour); the previous act being the untouched Consumer Credit Act 1974.

(5) Partly granted but let's face it everyone with a property was lapping up the increase in values and the opposition wasn't exactly very vocal. House prices were mainly pushed up by low interest 'lend to anyone' mortgages in a 'buy now worry later' era.

(6) It was Maggie who pushed RTB and promoted the belief that everyone should own their own home. In effect the biggest social landlords are now the banks with huge numbers of ex LA properties on interest only mortgages. I agree lack of regulation was a problem but the voice of opposition was non too effective.

(7) The city does what it wants really doesn't it? Created by the Yuppie era of yesterday.

(8) The Liberals were indeed the only ones who stood against Iraq but the Tories didn't and you've bloodied your hands by joining them. This was perhaps the Liberals strongest strand of credibility but I think people losing their jobs under the coalition will feel just as angry with you as they did over Iraq so you've blown that one, you've also gone very quiet on Trident.

(9) Oh come on! How can you argue that one whilst allowing the fiddling Mr Laws to remain an 'honourable' MP after stealing 40K from us hard working tax payers? There is no party with any credibility on this one and to pretend otherwise only tarnishes the Liberals further.

(10) Did you say tuition fees? What is is that the coalition is doing. To be fair to Labour they did increase child tax credit & Child benefit entitlement to parents with a dependant in non-advanced education up to the age of 20. They also promoted a fair number of schemes to encourage students. It now seems to be accepted that higher education should be paid for once the recipient is earning above the threshold salary.

(11) Gordon Brown was one of the longest running chancellors this country has ever had, his management of the economy was acclaimed and the Tories agreed there was no alternative other than to bail out the banks. I agree he was never the right man for PM. It was often said how he was never elected, but then neither Cameron or Clegg got the keys to number 10 in a proper elected way did they?

You talk of 13 years of Labour as though it was all bad but that's not what the public thought was it when voting in successive elections?

We've just had 13 years of Conservative Government under Blue Labour - while it;s touching that so many of it's supporter want to go all progressive, the reality is Labour remains a Conservative Party.

Look at how Jack Straw is moving to bloc even a referendum on Alternate Vote. Look at how Ken Clarke is getting more stick from the Labour party than the Tories. Lok at how that nice Mr Blair is doing his bit to fuel inequality with his massive "earnings".

Having run up massive debts, it's a bit pathetic for Labour supporter to be moaning about the cuts. Cuts that wouldn't have had to be made had Gordon Brown got any sort of economic competance. He was the worse chancellor post 1945.

Tom. There's cuts and there's butchering. Cameron and Clegg being the master butcher's!

I think you are overlooking the fact that the public may not have been too happy that the party that lost the election would have formed a coalition government. The Tory party got the largest number of seats and share of the votes. It was inevitable (in my opinion) that the Lib Dems would do a deal with the party that achived this. Nick Clegg said so during the election campaign.

I love coalition government. It is wonderful to have two parties working together. I shall vote accordingly next May as I am so tired of tribal politics. It seems so trivial at the moment when the country is facing huge problems to be inward looking.

Jane, Labour lost the election in the same way that the Tories and Liberals did; none of them got enough votes.

Before casting a vote on how well this coalition 'works together', I'd wait a little while longer before seeing what a disastrous effect all their most recent actions have upon our already fragile economy. Much as though Labour was unpopular (what government isn't after a 13 year period) let's not forget that we were coming out of a recession. It was a recession partly brought about by external forces; you've only got to look at other countries to see the global effect.

And when it comes to the Tribal argument, whilst Cameron and Clegg dance merrily around the wigwam, I don't exactly see any effort on their part to speak to Labour about all the good measures they've already put in place. Cameron pledged to ditch bureaucracy and has promptly proceeded to rewrite the statutes on laws that have already been repealed!

Whilst it is clear that no party won the GE it is laughable to suggest that a party that slumped to its lowest share of the vote since 1929 would have been accepted by the British people is, I'm afraid, laughable.

As a Lib Dem constituency chairman and someone who is broadly on the left of the party I would have preferred a coalition with Labour, but I get the feeling that Labour's decision not to implement the recommendations of the Jenkins report regarding AV+ is coming back to haunt them.

Labour did many good things in office, the record investment in public services being the main one. However, it should be remembered that the following cost Labour the election:

Disengagement from working class communities - a sense of they don't care about us
Timidity in the face of a right wing press
Lack of any discernible regulation regarding the banking industry, which helped to cause the current crisis
Record levels of personal debt
Allowing house prices to balloon out of all proportion and removing the possiblity of buying from many first time buyers
A social housing record that was worse than Thatcher
Lack of strong regulation regarding the City of London
Iraq
Various scandals (Eccleston, Mandelson, expenses - although this last is perhaps unfair as it was a plague on all parties)
Tuition fees
Gordon Brown and his lack of suitability for the role of Prime Minister

These are only some of the things that cost Labour the election, there was no betrayal by the Liberal Democrats that cost Labour office. Labour was ultimately compromised by the bad decisions they made over thirteen years.

Also, with regard to budget cuts, both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable stated that the cuts would come from the public sector. Cable was the only politician honest enough to say that no department should be ringfenced. Labour's lack of honesty regarding the budget cuts they would have had to made will also come back to bite them.

I turns out the Lib Dems are worse that the Tories, worse than Thatcher. It is the greatest con ever.

If they were going to cut by 40% I feel we will be into dangerous water. The Poll Tax led to rioting. What for God's sake is their game?