Richard III just said that, if I read correctly, the government does not have the will of the people.

So, which member of parliament sitting in the house didn't get the most number of votes in his or her constituency?

Crossing the benches is a trick that has been going on since Pitt the Younger. We vote a person into Parliament. They generally nail their flag to a party mast, but are allowed under the rules not to take the whip.

I will be the first to agree that as there was no first past the post in the last election, policies will be compromised and bartered. this is also admissible. People may or may not like it, and both main parties have argued over the years for retaining first past the post, so that mandates can be carried through. if you don't get an overall majority, your options are to either try to get a compromise with another party or two, or call another election.

In case nobody realised, another election straight away would give the IMF the jitters, bugger up our national credit rating and make recovery even harder. Difficult decisions would become very difficult decisions.

I don't like some of their decisions either. Their insistence that benefit fraud takes priority over other measures is slightly disingenuous. That said, don't confuse priorities with need for action. There are many many people for whom society should be shouldering responsibility, but there is also a culture of lifestyle choice with many people. Any action to get a wake up call out to those people is a welcome one.

In the meantime, can anybody tell me what direct action can do to bolster up the economy? I have read many genuine views of what shouldn't be scrutinised by the government but precious little (apart from the eat the rich brigade) about what should be looked at?