You know there is a difference between sticking up for a system and sticking up for the incumbent.

Under Parliamentary rules, if you can get support of enough elected MPs to your way of thinking, you can pop over to Buckingham palace and get the seals of office. Cameron did just that. if Clegg had more fruitful discussions with labour, Brown would have sat in the same car.

I support democracy, I also support tweaking of democracy. Fixed term Parliaments are far more democratic than incumbent's privilege to go early if they feel it is to their advantage. No party should have the election date fixed to their advantage, ever. That part of the proposed bill is something I could support. (That said, I still believe in first past the post come the election.)

Regarding this discussion over the cost of benefit versus the cost of taxes either owing or should be owed. Two wrongs don't make a right, so to compare is futile. Both need addressing. I said somewhere above that I felt the emphasis is being seen as benefits rather than taxes, but that is a perception. When you read the detail, tightening up of tax law and chasing tax avoiders is there, with as many column inches in the plans as benefit reform.

I don't support this government, I think it is too radical too quick and is naive when it comes to judging the capacity of the private sector. I feel that will be its undoing.

Luckily, I don't think it will fall by a few armchair socialists standing in their sandals and socks shouting for revolution. Revolution is something that Johnny Foreigner occasionally entertains. We have Parliamentary democracy already, so our guns (bows & arrows at the last count) have morphed into votes. Less bloodthirsty and you can be home in time for the Yorkshires to have risen.