the thought of a Tory government actually happening bloody depresses me

[ssd]

God help those of us on the breadline, we've had it now

not to hijack the thread with a small point, but, yes, £1000/month sounds affordable in relation to average incomes in the SE and proably at least 30% less than an interest-only mortgage.
My point was that most homeowners have "made" more money on their houses than in their jobs for the past 10 years. That is not a sign of a fair society.

It's not a fair society. There's alot of first time buyers who have been priced out of the market and forced to stay at home or rent. The 'buy to let' owners have done very well out of the Labour government, as have all of the people above the first time buyers. The loosers have been the first time buyers and the people who rent.

But average incomes in the SE calculated using which average? £1000 per month rent would be 50% of our income! We haven't made money on our property though have we because we can't release equity from it!

I have to say house in the NE where I'm originally from have also doubled in value (at least) in the last 10 years too.

cargirl, i'm not sure what your point is then. You are unhappy with the Tories coming in, yet the problems you are complaining about happened on Labour's watch.
Private rental prices have barely budged in that time, so in that respect - well done Labour, but probably just some knock-on effect of buy to let supply.

Scotland was not holding the Labour government up in 2005 at all...

In England it was almost an even split of votes, 35.5% to Labour, 35.7% to the Cons

In Wales it was 42.7% to Labour, 21.4% to the Cons

In Scotland it was 38.9% Lab 15.4% cON

Overall, Lab 35.2%, 32.4% Con

You cant tell me that means Scotland was holding the Labour Party up.

'The country didn't want a Labour government and just because Scottish people can't see beyond labour then that's the way it is. It's called democracy.'

Oh, so that's why there's a coalition government and not an outright Tory one, then.

Oh, and Scotland didn't vote entirely Labour.

I didn't.

Says it all really.

I never thought I'd say this but I am glad that the Tories have got in with a LibDem coalition. Based on the prediction of Mervyn King that the government that gets in now will be so unpopular that they will then be out for a generation, and also based on the fact that any coalition government is likely to fail abysmally(the LibDems have already shown their manipulative side and it will won't be long before Nick stops playimg ball, especially when the PR referendum fails) , there is likely to be another general election within the next two or three years due to the inability of the government to get any legislation passed. By that time Dvid Milaband will be the well established leader of the Labour Party and everyone will be sick of the sight of two squabbling upper class public school boys so ..... Life is sweet!

It's already unravelling - George Osborne for Chancellor when you could have Vince Cable!! Why should Vince advise a numpty and let him take all the glory, can't imagine it will be long before VC (not known to be right of centre) gets pissed off with that and lets GO struggle and fail.

V good question, Riven.

Pippi, don't underestimate the power of public school. NC and DC are both expert game players and, I suspect, understand one another quite well. This will count for a fair bit. Or so I hope.

They needed the Lib Dems to get an overall majority. The Lib dems were needed to join either Labour or the conservative party to bump their number over the 329 threashold in order to form a government, they could have asked all the other parties (like the SNP/UKIP etc) but this was a bigger risk as there was more parties they needed to agree with. The Lib dems were their best bet as they have more policies in common.

We're all doomed, I tell you, it's still the Old Boys Club in power, the wealthy will always prosper, sod the rest of us

Very Very Good question Riven the whole thing leaves me confusled and depressed.

God, you lot need to get out more if the thought of David Cameron becoming the next prime minister leaves you depressed!

It is quite difficult to get out when you have SN kids but i don't think not getting out is the problem thanks.

I have a disabled child RedZora. I do understand how hard it is, you need to give Cameron a chance though rather then assume your life is going to be miserable.

I don't need to 'get out more' thanks. what a stupid cliche. Firmly believe the dessimation of industry and normal folk in normal jobs just trying to make ends meet which Thatcher pioneered in the 80s, will rise up full force and with added vigour

Is all this "I remember Maggie" stuff actually helpful?

When Tony Blair came in, people were moaning that he wasn't enough like Harold Wilson (a prime minister at similar distance back in time), not that he was too much like him...

13 years, it's been 13 years since we had a conservative government, a Thatcher government ended a couple of years before this as we were lumbered with John Major. You really need to get a grip. David Cameron is not, nor ever has been, Margaret Thatcher. You can't assume that things will return. Cut the bloke some slack.

I'm with Tootlesmummy

belle - I think you may have a point. Actually it's not DC who depresses me the most but people like Ken Clarke in all honesty. But I am prepared to reserve judgement.

serajen, I am thorougly fed up with hearing about the "decimation of industry under Thatcher". My entire childhood was spent in a manufacturing environment in the industrial north, and the Thatcher years were fantastic.

We got the Lib Dems because no one won and someone needed to make a majority. If you took the two biggest parties the coalition would be Con/Lab, but those two could never play nicely so it had to move down one.

I continue to have issues with the Tories, but on balance am happy at the outcome. I was very concerned about a Lib/Lab pact propped up by the SMP - I had already heard Alex Salmond spelling out that the price of his support would be Scotland not taking a proportionate share of the cuts that will have to come (and I do think that cuts should be spread out based on a proper assessment of need, not on the fact that a particular MP has made it the price of his vote that his area isn't cut).