Could a government dare to set out with happiness as its goal? Now that there are accepted scientific proofs it would be easy to audit the progress of national happiness annually just as we monitor money and GDP.

Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it.

Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it.

Although my seat is a contest between Labour and the Lib Dems it could well make the difference between a Labour and a Tory government at the next election. In terms of international development this choice is a very clear one.

People create jobs not the government.

We in the Labour party know better than most that opposition is the easy part. What's more difficult is governing and setting out an agenda for government.

I think most people believe success in government is how many fewer people are in government not because you kick them off of benefits like unemployment but they've been able to control their own destiny because private sector employers have created more jobs.

It's become unfashionable to celebrate political achievement and Labour achievement even less so. And it's positively uncouth to be proud of something that this Labour government is doing. So slam me for saying so but I'm really proud of the NHS.

More people on unemployment benefits is not success in America fewer people on not because we kicked them off but because they have been able to get a job in the private sector because government got out of the way.

As the economy faces such difficulties more tough questions need to be asked about what the Tories would do if elected. Their ideology of free markets and small government needs challenging. That has to be part of our job.

We are the ones looking out for the middle class. Who do think pays for the endless expansion of government? Its middle class taxpayers. Our reforms protect middle class taxpayers.

As the prospect of a Tory government gets nearer many traditional Labour voters - some who switched away in recent times and many who stayed at home - seem more determined to prevent that happening.

I believe that smaller government is better government. But I also believe that in the areas where government does play a legitimate role we should demand that it is done better.

The choice between a Labour government and a Tory one is sharpening minds.

I promised to empower the taxpayer - instead of a handful of big government union bosses.

In Scotland the indication is that for the Westminster elections at least Labour voters are satisfied with their government.

One of those promises was to limit the size of government and to have the government serve the people - and not the other way around.

What the Lib Dems have failed to do is offer any meaningful agenda for government or for power.

I was very happy being a secretary. I loved working for the government. I was very happy with my life.

The Left regards the Constitution as defective and outmoded - in part because it impedes the government's ability to control institutions like churches and families which stand between the state and individuals.

You can't win with some people. If you're not in government you're criticised for being not serious. If you are in government you're criticised for wanting power. That's the Labour party's line of attack and it's a bit ridiculous.

Love is by far bigger than the government can ever be.

Republicans rarely criticize Obama for lack of empathy - in part because liberals have traditionally been seen as standing up for the weak and the vulnerable. Conservatives can be just as empathetic. But they believe that in most cases it's not government's role to be the primary dispenser of empathy.

I clearly believe a lot more than some of my coalition colleagues - Tories - in redistribution and using the tax system for that purpose. I also believe in the government having an active role in the economy which is having an industrial strategy. I'm not a believer in laissez-faire.