Why so Swift to judge Taylor?

Taylor Swift has a new album out today. There'll be plenty of publicity surrounding it, as there is with any big star, but why is it different for her?

For some reason, people seem to be queuing up to accuse her of ditching her country roots and - more juicily for the gossip mags and red tops - engaging in some sort of musical kiss and tell on her ex-boyfriends.

I haven't heard Taylor's latest effort yet but my girlfriend is a fan and I expect it'll be a similar blend of super catchy pop that she managed with Red.

For some reason, people want to be snobby about such music. I can't be doing with reviewers who fail to praise someone simply because they don't think it's cool or that it doesn't reference an obscure B side from the 1970s. An awful lot of music reviewers seem to have disappeared up their own B sides. A lot of the time you finish a review still none the wiser as to whether they thought it was any good or not.

So, yes, she's a little less country now but still has the odd nod to her roots. There's a blurred line (not a Thicke one) in the UK between country and pop anyway with many of the boyband ballads inflicted on our eardrums in the 90s having their roots in the Stetson-wearing Nashville set.

But what should she do? Is she not allowed to mature and develop her sound? Should she be forever bound by singing songs about 'losing her man, her dawg but still having a geetar and a ticket to the Grand Ol Opry'?

More serious is the suggestion that she's wrong to sing about her love life because it appears to be largely based on sexist nonsense.

She recently, rightly, pointed to the fact that artists such as Ed Sheeran and Bruno Mars aren't pulled up for apparently 'spilling the beans' through the medium of song.

Sadly we still seem to be in the dark ages whereby a 'bloke' can either boast about his 'conquests' or appear 'cute' by talking of heartbreak while a woman faces being seen as 'bitter' and not 'lady-like' for similar outbursts.

Of course Taylor Swift should write about what matters to her. We should welcome young artists who write their own material that means something to them and, by now, we ought to be over these silly gender stereotypes. Most of the people criticising her haven't got the talent to do what she does. It's not easy to write a successful pop song, if it was we'd all be at it.

I feel sorry for Taylor. She seems nice enough and her music is good fun. She proved in her recent Shake It Off video that she doesn't take herself seriously. Maybe it's about time some of her critics followed suit.

The election they don't want to win

Since when did we have to sleep with a party leader?

I only ask since the parties - in particular the Conservatives - have spent a lot of time telling us the perils of jumping between the sheets with old Farage since we might wake up with Ed Miliband. 

I don't know about you but I thought these were political parties,  not swingers parties.

A shuddering thought but if considered further - and party sock puppet Grant Shapps was keen to push it as often as possible - you're led to believe the slogan might be 'jump in to bed with Dave...and wake up with him the next morning too'. Not exactly appealing either.

And don't even get me started on the horrific thought of a 'hung Parliament' (very Sid James!).

Still if you forget this whole tawdry business - and I'm trying to, honest - you're left with the thought that the party leaders may well, aside from the prospect of having hordes of strangers jump in their beds (Ok, last mention) be approaching May with a sense of trepidation.

Assuming Ed Miliband does secure a victory, what prospect is there for his administration? Looming on the horizon would be the 'Scottish question'. It seems unfeasible that he could avoid some form of 'English votes for English laws' given the post-referendum mood south of the border.

But that could mean a Miliband Government loses the support of key numbers that it may need to carry the day on issues such as education. Any chance of reform could be seriously hampered.

Assuming the UKIP surge continues, he'd also have to come up with a plausible way of appeasing the growing calls for change in the EU. The 'fingers in ears while hoping that the whole thing causes the Tories to explode' tactic won't work forever.

Miliband could either ignore both issues and look out of touch or take them on and suffer. Either way it seems grounds for a fractious period in office.

But what about Cameron? Well, if he returns to Number 10 he really will have to deliver on his promise (what's stronger than cast iron I wonder?) to tackle the European question.

It looks like there'd be a significant - at least in audible volume - batch of UKIP MPs baiting him on this at every turn too.

It seems likely that his promised EU renegotiation will bring about some changes to our relationship with Brussels, but it also, to me at least, seems unlikely that any crumbs he gets will be enough to satisfy the big Eurosceptic bellies of his party.

What happens if he gets some concessions but not that many? Does he lead the 'out' campaign, arguing against the very changes he has been able to engineer? Or does he back something he knows isn't quite enough and make the case to stay in the EU, putting himself at odds with the party faithful? It's the heart of what makes his current stance more than a little confusing for voters and party members alike.

This is all, of course, presuming that none of two will need to go into a coalition with the Lib Dems or even UKIP - again weakening what they can do.

In fact, how about a bet on none of Clegg, Cameron or Miliband lasting the aftermath of the election? It's maybe a little far fetched but if Miliband fails to win he'd surely be ditched while if Cameron fails to win outright for a second time he'd face big questions - especially with a certain floppy haired former Mayor of London waiting in the wings. And Clegg? Well, he's surely being fed to the electoral slaughter. The Lib Dems know they face a brutal kicking so why put another leader through that?

They seem content to concentrate on keeping as many seats as possible and hoping to hold on to enough to be vaguely relevant in the Commons after May. UKIP may well poll a high share of the public vote but as the Lib Dems have found out, that doesn't matter one bit unless the support can translate into winning seats. It's no good being a strong second everywhere.

The election may well turn into one of those cricketing tosses that you'd rather lose and let the other team make your mind up for you. Going into the bat for either a Labour or Tory government after May would be tricky. Maybe, perversely, it's best (in a narrow party interest way) to lose and let the other side have their own meltdown? 

Whichever party emerges victorious, you'd certainly not be putting money on a second full five year term, would you? 

2015 could well be a quick fling rather than a full blown relationship - maybe that's why they're so keen to bombard us with 'going to bed' analogies after all.