It's happened! Cameron is PM!

[Ivo]

I'll be surprised if this coalition lasts longer than two years. In fact, I wouldn;t be amazed if we were voting again within a year!

And to launch my new career as a psychic, here are some more devastating predictions for the next couple of years:

Prince Philip will suffer from some sort of health problem
A French team will win the rugby union Heineken Cup
Some flights may well be cancelled
Weather patterns will continue to be unpredictable

My new website, MysticGreenback is coming soon!!!!

What about Englands chances at the World Cup and next weeks winning lottery numbers

I'm afraid my spirit guide has temporarily deserted me. Sje must have popped to the toilet.

!!!!! Thanks for making me spit on my laptop!

To get back on track, this country needs something to revitalise it, and I believe that a Cameron-Clegg coalition is exactly what we needed. That, and for ATOC to develop a sense of decency.

 

[Greenback]

I hope you are right. It's a promising start to the coalition, the best outcome would be if the best Tory and Lib Dem policies were followed - I approve of the commitment to High Speed rail, abolition of the third runway and getting rid of ID cards and all that. I am still sceptical that it will last, though! No chance for ATOC though!

 

[thefab444]

Time to bring out the colours me thinks.

Fully agree with your post. I'm giving this Cameron/Clegg coalition a chance, I want to see if it's Cameron pulling the strings and Clegg just ensuring it gets through Parliament or whether we'll see some policy differences appear. It's how these are resolved that will determine if the coalition will last. Maybe a Clegg/Milliband pact would have been better for getting proportional representation and some other Lib Dem policies (tax in particular) but Labour has such a poor track record on reform and fair tax policy after 13 years that it wouldn't've been worth the risk.

 

[Zoe]

Maybe a Clegg/Milliband pact would have been better for getting proportional representation

Do we really want PR? The BNP and other extremists could get seats with PR.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The Alternative vote system would be my choice.

It is much simpler than PR and maintains the direct link between constituency and member. It also results in the candidate with the greatest overall consensus amongst the constituency to be elected.

 

[HITMAN]

All the fixed terms mean is that Parliament decides when to hold the election rather than the prime minister, because of course there can still be a vote of no confidence, so it will be ironic when a government has a three line whip of no confidence against itself

 

[Mojo]

All the fixed terms mean is that Parliament decides when to hold the election rather than the prime minister, because of course there can still be a vote of no confidence, so it will be ironic when a government has a three line whip of no confidence against itself

That is what the planned new 55% rule is about. The new idea is to have a set date for the next election but with Parliament being dissolved if 55% of members voting for it (of course the Queen does it, but you know what I mean) and an election is called. The existing Vote of No Confidence will stay the same at present (50% + 1 MP) which would mean that all members of the government would have to resign.

That's why I'm of the opinion this new 55% rule is more and not less democratic; if the leadership decides when the polls are in his favour that he is fed up with working with the Lib Dems and thinks he could get a majority it would not be as easy as whipping the MPs to vote for a dissolution as support from other parties would be required. Of course, many "normal" governments also have more than 55% of seats in the house, but it makes it harder.

 

[HITMAN]

That is what the planned new 55% rule is about. The new idea is to have a set date for the next election but with Parliament being dissolved if 55% of members voting for it (of course the Queen does it, but you know what I mean) and an election is called. The existing Vote of No Confidence will stay the same at present (50% + 1 MP) which would mean that all members of the government would have to resign.

Then one could imagine British politics in the rather novel but unfortunate situation that if 57% of MP's have no confidence in the government but only 52% want an election then we could be faced with having no government until the end of its term which could be years away.

 

[TrainBrain185]

I hope you are right. It's a promising start to the coalition, the best outcome would be if the best Tory and Lib Dem policies were followed - I approve of the commitment to High Speed rail, abolition of the third runway and getting rid of ID cards and all that. I am still sceptical that it will last, though! No chance for ATOC though!

Promising start? Be cautious and let us wait and see. There has been a lot of talk but I sense the "honeymoon period" will hit a stone wall shortly after the first Budget. I am not a supporter of the coalition and would have admired Mr Cameron more had he gone it alone without joining forces with Mr Clegg. I suspect before 5 years is up, a decree-nisi between the two. If they wave a magic wand and manage to be successful balancing the national debt reductions/spending cuts, reducing unemployment and avoiding possible major strike actions, then I would say "well done".

ID Cards have not been introduced to get rid of. High Speed Rail projects are by no means a certainty neither.

 

[ungreat]

Libs will NEVER govern..way too weak and wishy washy..get rid of nukes? yeah,that makes sense with Iran building theirs! Idiots and too soft

 

[ainsworth74]

that makes sense with Iran building theirs!

Iran would strugle to deliver a weapon to Poland let alone the UK, they don't have anything with the range. Iran is not a direct threat to the UK in the nuclear realm.

 

[ungreat]

So we are led to believe.....

 

[ainsworth74]

So we are led to believe.....

Using the infomation avalible in the public domain it is true Iran cannot strike the UK. Whether or not there is classified information suggesting different I don't know, not being affliated with anything that would have access to that sort of Intel.

I think I should also point out I am in favour of replacing Trident, it a capability I would rather have and not need instead of need and not have.

 

[CarterUSM]

Using the infomation avalible in the public domain it is true Iran cannot strike the UK. Whether or not there is classified information suggesting different I don't know, not being affliated with anything that would have access to that sort of Intel.

I think I should also point out I am in favour of replacing Trident, it a capability I would rather have and not need instead of need and not have.

Absolutely, better safe than sorry. Catch 22 though, god forbid the use of it at all.

 

[stuartmoss]

It's been crap for Leeds so far, the trolleybus scheme has been axed already, and we've been told forget trams it's never going to happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To add to all of the above:
Beeching
The Black Report
The Miners Strike
The Poll Tax

I'm not that optimistic that a leopard can change it's spots, even with a Lib Dem monkey riding it.

 

[CarterUSM]

It's been crap for Leeds so far, the trolleybus scheme has been axed already, and we've been told forget trams it's never going to happen.

If Edinburgh's joke of a project is anything to go by, it may be a blessing in disguise!

 

[Aictos]

Iran would strugle to deliver a weapon to Poland let alone the UK, they don't have anything with the range. Iran is not a direct threat to the UK in the nuclear realm.

They wouldn't need to use a rocket, They could easily get away with a small package in some vehicle parked somewhere and bang goes the neighbourhood.

It's only a theory but one based on Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears when terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Super Bowl.

 

[jon0844]

So we are led to believe.....

If Tony Blair was still in power, I'm sure we'd have been told about their secret stash of long-range missiles and the ability to launch them in a matter of minutes!

...Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears when terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Super Bowl.

There would still be less outrage than if a nipple was exposed!

I think I should also point out I am in favour of replacing Trident, it a capability I would rather have and not need instead of need and not have.

I read somewhere that someone said why don't we just PRETEND to have a fancy new nuclear deterrent...

 

[BlythPower]

Iran is totally disinterested in having missiles than can reach the UK. Their missiles can reach Israel and that's all they're bothered about. Similarly, North Korea's not interested in nuking anyone other than South Korea.

 

[Greenback]

The UK is not as important as some politicians would like to believe. Our special relationship with the US has brought us more attnetion from extremists than we would otherwise have had.

 

[ungreat]

We've had that relationship with the US since 1941,so don't spout that ****.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Iran is totally disinterested in having missiles than can reach the UK. Their missiles can reach Israel and that's all they're bothered about. Similarly, North Korea's not interested in nuking anyone other than South Korea.

Get outta here..they want long range stuff..They may be happy right now but they will,and probably are,developing one that can go a little further!

 

[CarterUSM]

The UK is not as important as some politicians would like to believe. Our special relationship with the US has brought us more attnetion from extremists than we would otherwise have had.

Disagree mate. We are capable of levelling cities and/or destroying nations. We may not be the power we were at the height of the pax brittania, but we still ruled a quarter of the globe which no-one else has matched. As much as i don't mind the yanks, i still consider them colonial upstarts In all seriousness though, we still hold considerable clout, as Argentina will testify. Sure, we're not in the same nuclear league as the USA, Russia or China, but we are not to be trifled with by anyone else.

 

[Greenback]

We can disagree, there is now way to prove who is right! One thing, though, we don't have the naval capability to recapture the Falklands now. In fact, it's doubtful if we could have done it even in 1984, such was the run down of the RN fleet. It's worth remembering that the sale of one of the carriers to India had to be postponed, and another carrier's sale was cancelled as a result of the war. The Sea Harrier is also now very old, but can probably still do a job due to its unique abilities!

 

[CarterUSM]

We can disagree, there is now way to prove who is right! One thing, though, we don't have the naval capability to recapture the Falklands now. In fact, it's doubtful if we could have done it even in 1984, such was the run down of the RN fleet. It's worth remembering that the sale of one of the carriers to India had to be postponed, and another carrier's sale was cancelled as a result of the war. The Sea Harrier is also now very old, but can probably still do a job due to its unique abilities!

I think we still do have the capability with current technology, the new type 45's also are an awesome piece of kit, albeit they are not all on the job currently. Not to mention the new carriers when ready. Also not forgetting a larger permanent garrison on the islands themselves, so I doubt they'd even attempt it again anyway.

 

[Greenback]

I doubt it too! The point is that we don;t have enough weapon platforms to fulfil all of our current obligations, never mind any new conflicts. It may be that the current mix of ships is wrong, but we won't know that unless something happens, and I don;t really want that! After all, the Falklands proved there were plenty of flaws with the ships then - poor AAW capability, no early warning systems, suspect to fire, insufficient missile stroage capacity. Even though these have been remedied, there will still be design flaws that haven't been identified yet.

 

[CarterUSM]

I doubt it too! The point is that we don;t have enough weapon platforms to fulfil all of our current obligations, never mind any new conflicts. It may be that the current mix of ships is wrong, but we won't know that unless something happens, and I don;t really want that! After all, the Falklands proved there were plenty of flaws with the ships then - poor AAW capability, no early warning systems, suspect to fire, insufficient missile stroage capacity. Even though these have been remedied, there will still be design flaws that haven't been identified yet.

You are absolutely correct there, i believe the torpedos used to sink the Belgrano were of a WW2 design, and indeed were preferred over the new stocks flaws of the time, though i'm sure someone will know the exact details better than i. We are certainly over-stretched at the moment if reports are to be taken as accurate all the same. All in all, it'd be best not to have to partake in anything of that sort again. It would be nice to have a little harmony!!

 

[yorksrob]

It's been crap for Leeds so far, the trolleybus scheme has been axed already, and we've been told forget trams it's never going to happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To add to all of the above:
Beeching
The Black Report
The Miners Strike
The Poll Tax

I'm not that optimistic that a leopard can change it's spots, even with a Lib Dem monkey riding it.

Don't forget the botched railway privatisation.

Speaking as someone who lives and works around Leeds though, I can't say I'm too bothered about the loss of the trolley bus scheme. Frankly I'd rather they stopped dreaming up bright ideas and got the trains we have already to run to a decent time of night.