And that is different from the current method of parliamentary decision making how?

At the beginning of TBs second term of office a university did a study of "MAJOR polictical decisions" over the last 40 years (eg:- tax cuts/wars/poll tax introduction/poll tax abolition). Every single one of them was made for the benefit/survival of the party in office rather than the good of the nation.

The "problem" with hung parliments is not that they wont work, its that the policitcians wont make them work. Now however, MPs are aware that the public are already watching them so maybe...just maybe... they might actually decide to do the job they were voted in to do.

So much to go through off your last post but I'll just say that the points you raised above are all valid and personally I have no problem with them but all of the above were easy to do - it was a simple case of chucking money at it ........... that's what Labour have done, glibly thrown money at everything.

BTW the way - I'm the hypocrite? Your man has already admitted responsibility for the banking crash after so much denial so accept it FFs and the fact that you accept the Gold issue is progress in recognising GB's constant need for cash to fund LieBour's stunningly unproductive policies - No 10 centrally negotiated GP contracts anyone??

Whatever else you might be thinking I just want these people out - they've been an absolute disaster. We're skint and we have nothing to show for the next 30 years despite the money that's been splashed out in the last 13.

We have no money left to spend. It's gone, they've spent it and so based on what they do when they have money I dread to think what life will be like with them in power without any dosh.

Yes, we need money. Any government does. I want a government though which at heart recgonises that the state has to intervene to make things work for all. I don't want a government which will rely on the WI and the PTA to run our local services.

Wait for it ............... I absolutely agree with you. The railways should never have been sold and I would have hoped that Labour would have renationalised them given the chance when Network Rail and various franchises went belly up. Labour shouldn't be rationalising the Post Office network it should be expanding it and they had a glorious chance to do so when the banking crash hit - but they didn't.

You've been sold Conservative Lite - admit it, that's exactly how NuLiebour positioned themselves in their efforts to get elected 13 years ago and they've achieved it. What about the Unions? They've been sold an absolute pup by their lords and masters and the biggest/saddest joke is they are funding it!

Cameron's espousings of the WI & PTA to run local services is an absolute joke but running alongside that their vision of expanding the private sector is absolutely correct - the private sector has to be given the tools to be given the chance to develop and grow without the masses of red-tape that it's being strangled by because at the moment businesses are a being treated as a cashpoint by the Gov't to fund evermore poorly thought out initiatives and policies that are launched with the single aim of keeping them in power - it's pathetic.

I hope you mean Railtrack went belly up, Network Rail is very much alive and very well.

Business was chumming up to Labour for ten years. We never heard this stuff about excessive red tape, business being used as a cash cow to fund the public sector or whatever, at the 2001 or 2005 elections….the business community was firmly behind Labour which is why they won three pretty easy election victories. Even in 2005 the main opposition to Labour was from the left (anti war), the business community was onside which is why the Tories found it hard to make headway. Business is disgruntled basically because we have had a global recession, which was not caused by the Labour government, it was caused by excessive greed fuelling excessive risk, and a lack of government regulation because Labour were in on the game of getting off the financial sector’s back. If there is a critique on bad economic management, it comes from the left not the free-marketers.

Belatedly the Labour government has got in on the act and tried to negate some of the effects, its shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, but the arguments against Labour from some sections of the business community are basically complaining about shutting the gate. The Tories have got no answers on how to mend the economy, which is glaringly apparent by the stock Conservative answer to every question about their plans for growing the private sector: “we won’t bring in Labours jobs tax”. Fantastic, the Tories won’t increase NI by 1%. But their plan that simply by keeping NI at the same rate its been under Labour up till now, that the private sector will suddenly boom, doesn’t wash. They will also be making about 500000 job cuts in the public sector, which is going to have an impact on peoples willingness to buy private sector goods, and putting tuition fees up to about £7000. George Osborne needs to be careful about all of his doomsday warnings about “going to the IMF for money” as an example of the worst possible example of economic failure, because the likelihood is that in 1-2 years, a Tory government is going to do just that. History will blame the Tories for it not Labour, just like they blamed Labour in 1976, despite the fact they inherited a bankrupt economy from Ted Heath in December 1974.

This "waste" is jobs in the public sector.

The Conservatives are trying to win an election on the back of 'we are not labour'.

Ah, right. So remove an amount of public sector workers, I would imagine primarily by directing them towards early retirement/voluntary redundancy. Whilst taking away contributions to the income tax revenue, paying out redundancies (from public funds), reducing contributions to the public pension fund and creating payments from the the public pension fund that were not forecasted.

Sounds like excellent planning to me.

If you can grasp that the public sector doesn't "produce" anything then it's easier to understand why there will be a need to create "efficiencies".

I see waste everyday in the public sector. One example - Culcheth has 2 doctors surgeries located 25 metres apart. One with 4 GP's and the other with 2. Both are staffed by nurses and receptionist staff. None of the GP's in either practice work 40 hours a week. Rent, rates, building maintenance, support staff costs are all duplicated. It is rediculous and would never happen in the private sector.

In perspective the £6bn reduction for Government is equivalent to us all saving £1 for every £100 we spend. That is achievable.

The budget deficit is £163 bn, so if we make an achievable £6bn reduction the deficit is £154 bn.

But they wanted to half the deficit over the Parliament, or if its the Tories, reduce the 'bulk' of the deficit. So that leaves 4 years to get about £72bn down. Where will that come from? Bear in mind that the NHS, state pensions, armed forces spending, Trident renewal etc have been "ring fenced" and welfare spending will shoot up with the unemployment that results from cutting back jobs in the public sector.

Any ideas on where the £72bn will come from? More 'efficiencies' in Whitehall?