Saintandy666

You're not wrong there. However, I am entitled to I hope, my uninformed opinion just as you are entitled to yours!

I'm alright

£20bn in 'efficiency savings'. It's quite a lot when it goes down to individual hospital trusts. Hard decisions are having to be made.

He broke his promise on no top-down re-organisation, and he broke his promise on no cuts to the NHS as well! Budgets are being cut left, right and centre... often renamed 'efficiency savings'.

We don't live in a Christian society. A secular one is closer to the truth.

They don't need more responsibility, they have enough on their plates as it is. We don't need doctors wasting their time on accountancy, or worse hiring private companies to do it for them. What we need to do is let the doctors get on with doctoring and leave the budget setting to a third party who can do it objectively. The PCT's do this at the moment, and yes they are unpopular because they do this... but we don't want GPs becoming protest points.

I was lucky enough to sit on my local hospitals board of governors for a year, and as a volunteer at the moment I also get to watch the hospital in working closely from a practical point. And my brother's a junior doctor. So I've had quite a broad viewing of the NHS the last couple of years. And these reforms are a disaster, and will lead to privatisation by the back door, due to the way hospitals are now run under the trust system. And the longer this dead bill is dragged out, the worse it is for the NHS. Staff don't know what the hell is going on at the moment and that is wasting a lot of time and resource. The NHS isn't perfect, and changes are needed, but not these changes. It's about time they go back to the drawing board.

Oh wow, I should probably properly read posts before replying in future! I don't think it is the end of their credibility at all. If they can get unemployment down, and growth up, I don't think anyone will care about what the ratings agencies say. But of course, it's hard to do that if bond yields are up, and so no stimulus can be provided and debt just increases. The credibility of the coalition won't depend on credit rating agencies in my opinion, most people don't know or care about them. It'll depend on how they see their own personal economic surroundings of family, friends and hometown.

I doubt it. The lib dems wouldn't abandon the conservatives because A. They aren't in a good place and B. they've stuck thick and thin through a lot so far, I think they are in for the long run. And they support coalition governments, so they want this one to work. I don't think the Tories would leave either; at the moment, many prefer coalition as it means they can keep their nutty right quiet(though signs this is changing last few months??) and polls are showing even stevens at the moment and I don't think the tories would win an election. David Cameron just isn't that popular, however unpopular Miliband is, hence why he couldn't even win an election against Gordon Brown, the most unpopular PM perhaps ever. I think the Coalition is probably here to stay until the end of 2014 when the parties will start to split up in order to differentiate themselves before the next election. Could be wrong mind... in my opinion, it depends how far the Lib Dems can be pushed before saying 'no more'. They've put up with a lot so far, but they are seeing many of their policies installed so we will see.

The BBC provides a lot of great programmes and more, and is objective. Just by existing, it keeps standards up.

Wow. Pretty incredible stuff, I wonder how long it'd take us compared to him to do that 5 digit one! Would be impossible without paper for me, but I guess that is where his words come in, to easily remember numbers.

They often seem to do that for a couple of games.

Some of my friends at Uni have received similarly aggressive letters. I love the BBC though, great value for money.

That is true, but the US is desperately trying to look that way and group itself over the pacific to the east rather than to us in Europe to the west. Saw an interesting stat the other day, that as Chinas and the East GDP share has risen dramatically, it isn't actually the US's share of GDP that has been going down, it has been to the expense of Europe's share. And the US seems to be coming out of its economic doldrums now as well. I think I have, and others in fairness, may have underestimated the US.

Perhaps, but I really don't think China is too interested in waging wars. Economic wars yes, but military ones, I feel not(with Taiwan as an exception). The days of that kind of empire are over in my opinion. Capitalism provides an alternative route to world domination. Then again, I'm not that up on Sino-Iranian relations. Why is it in Chinas interests for Iran to win such a war as opposed to US/Israel, bar Middle Eastern influence/oil(though we aren't buying their oil anymore).

Is it really in Chinas interests to wage a proxy war with the US? Their empire is an economic one. Is it really in their interests to wage a war with 25% of the worlds GDP? I think they'd say broadly neutral and eventually put their foot down on Iran. Russia, however is a totally different story.

There's talk of him and his company losing its licence as a fit and proper person to hold shares in a broadcasting company.

Sky won't shut down, but it's a real possibility, Murdoch and co will have to sell their shares in it.

It's quite clear now News International, and perhaps/probably a lot of our tabloid press were rotten to the core. Whether closing down all the publications as some are now calling for the Sun to go is a good idea or not, I don't know... it's one less voice, but something major needs to be done. The media should be reporting the news, not BEING the news.

I hoped it'd be you

I guess you have to weigh financial constraints with what makes you happy. Sometimes risk taking can pay off, but it could not work out as well! You just need to look at the pros and cons of it and think about it all, though if you have a family to support, it may be best to make sure it's all definitely in place before making the leap. Life is short though. Now cue, someone saying you know nothing of this, but oh well.

I really think what he said isn't that big of a deal. He has a point to a degree, i.e gay Tories voting for section 28, but riddled isn't really a good word. Gay people I know aren't offended by this and if there is one thing I dislike, it is orchestrated outrage. Ken Livingstone as far as I am aware has always advocated and fought for equality regardless of sexuality and good on him. A much better record than the Tories who are threatening revolt over Gay marriage.

Yes, but everyone keeps going that if we had a US style system, we'd have people like George Bush as our leader. I'm saying, if the US did had a UK style system, why would that have prevented him from becoming leader as a PM?

Didn't loads of Saints moan exactly the same thing beforehand? :/

So why wouldn't George Bush have ended up PM if the USA had the same system as us?