´óÏó´«Ã½

Some elements of the agreement seem encouraging. The raising of the personal allowance should by itself help low earners. The key phrase here is ‘by itself’. We can all talk of a fairer society and point to such a measure as evidence that we mean it, but if there are savage public spending cuts, then this tax measure may become largely meaningless in the face of public sector pay cuts, job losses and increases in prices or other taxes (VAT, for example, which is a regressive tax because it hits the poor harder).

Measures to remove the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government also look promising. But, as with all the proposals, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Stating aspirations is easy, as New Labour demonstrated; carrying them through to fruition is another matter. Labour introduced the Human Rights Act, which was a step in the right direction, but allowed terrorism to move it back towards a less free society (having said that, New Labour was good on removing discrimination in many areas).

The voting system: I suspect a trap here. Most Conservatives would die before accepting PR. If there is a referendum only on AV, then the case for change is greatly weakened since it actually isn’t much of a change anyway. The Liberals could lose that referendum and find PR becomes an even more distant goal. More generally, I still think the Conservatives plan to ‘humour’ the LDs in this arrangement while retaining most of the decision-making. It is noticeable that the LDs do not have a single major Cabinet post.

The composition of the coalition is totally unrepresentative of the wider society: two public school toffs head a cabinet in which 3 went to Eton and 3 went to Westminister, in which I think there are only 3 or 4 women out of 23, and not one ethnic minority member. It is predominantly English, white, male and upper or upper middle class. If this is a 'revolution', as the Times calls it, it is a backward one.

If the coalition works reasonably well, it might mean an end or at least a diminution of the adversarial Brirtish political system in favour of a more consensual approach. The odds are that the fissures will surface within a year or two. The coalition may be given a fair wind now, but when the honeymoon is over, how long before the civil partnership is dissolved?

Yeah - I noticed that the Latter Day Democrats were nearly as "Toff"y flavored as the Tories. They just went to different public schools.

Still, if they'd all gone to the same Comprehensive in Luton we wouldn't be worried. Maybe the class warriors in us are too eager for blood, Brian!

GV

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, approximately 1.3 million Swedes emigrated to the United States. By 1910, one in every five Swedes lived in America.After more than a century away from the old country, you'd expect Swedish-Americans, in terms of life expectancy and economic achievement, are remarkably similar to their European cousins. This is despite the fact that social policies in the U.S. and Sweden are vastly different.
So whoever is in charge---we're doomed!

GV

Fun jobs for kidz!! Get the tweenies (10-15) into the community before its too late!!
Change the legal age to work and give the tweenies a chance to have some responsibility in the community. They could get paid minimum wage doing fun jobs working in childrens wards (helping porters, watching dvds with sick kids..), helping out at local children daycares, police centres,councils,conservation work...would need to get a report card every month from their school saying that they attended school & that their grades matched their capabilities...need to be government funded - but put the effort in now, hopefully get the reward back later..target youths who seem to need it most..

Did anyone notice that the inflation rate is nearly TWICE that of the target rate????? (3.7%, compared to a target of 2%)

There's only one solution. Spend, spend, spend folks! It's our patriotic duty to wipe out pensioners savings to reduce the national debt!!

Putting all people over the age of 65 in a Home would save money
and take away there Fuel Allowance, free Bus passes, pensions,
free tv licences and so on, there going to die anyway and it will save money, but i guess the Toffs in Westminster [Tories and Liberals]
wouldint accept anything of the Sort even tho its the Easist way of Saving money without effecting the lives of the living intead of the Oldies,