David Cameron takes over as British prime minister

Just what the world needs, another Conservative.

The Labour party has failed so comprehensively that this coalition was the only workable outcome, in my view.

For Labour to have remained in power with the support of various tiny minority nationalists (who themselves lost support in the election) would have been completely unjust.

There are some tough spending decisions to be made, but at least a new government can make them, rather than carrying on with the profligate tax-and-waste policies of Gordon Brown and his failed vote-buyers.

Goodbye Gordon, Mandelson, Balls, Miliband 1, Miliband 2, Harriet Harperson and Alistair Campbell, you have done your best to try and wreck Britain, now leave others to try and sort out the mess you have made.

FnC

It's far from ideal, but I suppose it's the best we can hope for in the circumstances. At least the Eton Boy has the Cleggster as his deputy and four more Lib_Dems in the Cabinet to keep him more or less in line, I suppose (I hope).

I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron calls another election soon after his wife gives birth. The voters are suckers for babies.

Cameron swept into his new home less than 90 minutes after an emotional Brown had made a farewell address

The UK home removals business is nothing if not fast.

Another reason I'm not looking forward to going back in a few months.

Well done David Cameron. The only reason the Conservatives didn't win by a landslide is that Labour has done its upmost to create a society dependent on handouts from the government. Cameron was honest and realistic about the need to cut the deficit but many would have rather seen the country borrow its way into oblivion.

A heavy price to be paid though, to have this man Clegg as deputy PM. He sniffed what was the only chance he will ever get of some actual power, offering himself to either party for the best price. Lets hope none of his crackpot ideas become reality.

This is the conservatives paired with the liberal democrats (a left wing party) though... It'll be hung and I doubt the conservatives will be able to achieve much.

Blimry i am arguing with MR Smash again. Not a vendetta i assue you. Clegg went to public school and Louis Theroux was his fag. However Cleggs policies may have been unpopular with business and hurt the economy whereas Camerons exesses towards helping his rich mates have been stopped.

I would say, that if the coalition holds firm, the policies will benefit the majority especailly low oncome people who find benefits a better oprion than working.

A lot of very personal party political broadcasts on here. The real reason why my country is in political stalemate and economic uncertainty is because of our dated party system, which is not very democratic at all and has resulted in only two contenders who just slag the other side off all the time. Instead of running the country in a mature and business-like manner we just have schoolyard name-calling.

The Labour party has failed so comprehensively that this coalition was the only workable outcome, in my view.

Wrong. The coalition was the only workable outcome because the Conservatives could not gain enough of an Election majority to rule government. Nothing to do with Labour. Despite Gordon Brown being one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in history, the Conservatives support was so poor that it could not gain a majority.

We now have a government made up with the party who only came in 3rd with only 50 seats nationwide.

The only reason the Conservatives didn't win by a landslide is that Labour has done its upmost to create a society dependent on handouts from the government.

Nope. The only reason the Conservatives didn't win by a landslide is because the voting electorate didn't vote by a majority landslide.

We now have a government made up with the party who only came in 3rd with only 50 seats nationwide.

One of the reasons there will now at last be electoral reform - the number of seats gained in no way reflects the number of votes gained. The Lib Dems got 23% of the vote but less than 9% of the seats, while the Tories got 36% of the votes and 47% of the seats. Labour got 29% of the vote and nearly 40% of the seats. Either the BBC or Guardian news podcast this morning (can't remember which, I listen to them both while walking the dog) said something about Clegg pointing out to Cameron that the power balance between the two parties was, in terms of votes, in the region of 60:40; the LibDems aren't the miniscule party people try to make them out to be.

cleo, I understand your 'total UK' arithmetic. But it still works out with the Lib-Dems only coming in 3rd, electoral reform or not.

Just what the world needs, another Conservative.

It sure does. But I hope he quits with the Green nonsense.

The electoral reform argument should be more to do with other non-governing political party MP's who won Election seats, getting a say in a shared government. It is not so simple just to redraw the political map (the UK consituency map). The constituency map is there for a very historical reason. If we want a total UK vote then we would have to do away with local constituencies and run the country centrally. Ask people in Scotland or Manchester or Wales how they would feel about that.

northlondon - Yes, of course third place is still third place. But it's a much bigger third place.

I also agree with you that redrawing the political map is not easy, but I don't think it has to be all or nothing - either 'first-past-the-post' or 'total UK'. I understand there are all sorts out ideas floating around, the alternative voting system, proportional representation a la Japan, etc. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of it all.

One of the reasons there will now at last be electoral reform - the number of seats gained in no way reflects the number of votes gained.

Very true. However, in any representational democracy you often have a minority ruling, if it is the largest minority.

I don't think that it has happened in the UK yet, but it is possible that a minority that is not even the largest minority, but the largest minority among a "coalition of loosers," (as any Clegg Brown pact was being called).

Had there been proportional representation in this election then the top three parties would have recieved Conservative 228 Labour 183 Liberal Democrat 145 seats, and the remaing parties another 70 (as opposed to only 29 under the current constituency system). The above result would have raised the possibility that even the third biggest minority party leader, Clegg, could have become prime-minister by forming coallitions with smaller parties (since 70 plus 145>228).

While there is often, or usually, minority rule in any representational democracy, the present constiutency system ensures that at least it is a large, usually only the largest, minority that can rule. Perhaps this has advantages.

The Labour party has failed so comprehensively that this coalition was the only workable outcome, in my view.

For Labour to have remained in power with the support of various tiny minority nationalists (who themselves lost support in the election) would have been completely unjust.

There are some tough spending decisions to be made, but at least a new government can make them, rather than carrying on with the profligate tax-and-waste policies of Gordon Brown and his failed vote-buyers.

Goodbye Gordon, Mandelson, Balls, Miliband 1, Miliband 2, Harriet Harperson and Alistair Campbell, you have done your best to try and wreck Britain, now leave others to try and sort out the mess you have made.

Like I already said, A lot of very personal party political broadcasts on here. Instead of running the country in a mature and business-like manner we just have schoolyard name-calling.

Instead of running the country in a mature and business-like manner we just have schoolyard name-calling.

Isn't that just British "irony"?

Patrick, I hope so too. I have friends who live on low wages and the 10,000 GBP tax start will give them a fiver a week extra. doesn`t sound much, but it all adds up.

I dont think either of them are morally bad, but maybe out of touch, especially Cameron. He wants to stop benefits for people who dont accept certain jobs. This policy is open to abuse by the government who can make rules up as they go along to massage figures. The tax band increase though can only be good. Not all low earners are lazy or idle as some think, but are not academically gifted and have not have had support in finding their "talents".

I hope a new dawn starts where everyone who is prepared to work will be paid a decent wage allowing them a good life and work conditions that are high and accountable by law.

I know some who work bloody hard working in what are callled "menial" jobs and pay a lot of tax and NI. I know none couple who both work and are less than 20 Pounds a week better off than if claiming benefits. something is very wrong and let`s hope everyone can live relatively well. We cann never have equality, but hard working people who do there best should not have to worry about affording to pay their bills.

Britian is wealthy enough and if more distribution is needed, so be it. if i return and have to pay more tax to make peoples lives better then so be it. It may be me who needs these safeguards that may be implimented.

Cameron doesn`t actually support the heavy handed way Israel conducts itself. This may be to appease the British who are not sympathetic with Israel the way the US is.

While Cameron and Clegg may be similar in many ways, there is a huge gulf between the policies supported by their parties and presumably their voters. On almost any major area - Europe, immigration, environment, taxation, welfare - they are polar opposites. The Conservatives might have actually found more common ground with Labour, if personalities were left out of it. There will be some quick economic fixes, then a period of confict, at the end of which Cameron will call a quick election, blaming his junior partner for obstructing government process.

I thought a quick election was on the cards, but apparently the new government programme includes "five-year, fixed-term parliaments, meaning the next election would not take place until May 2015", according to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8676607.stm

But you know, policies, politics and back-room deals aside, when all's said and done, the Cleggster is definitely HOT.

How guaranteed that “fixed 5 year term” really is I don’t know, it was created by consent and can doubtless be ended the same way. Today the clue holding this “government” together is fresh and everybody (bar Labour) are happy that something finally did come together. What we need to wait and see is just how long it takes until coalition of the desperate starts coming apart under the ideological strains of actual working government. I really can’t see this government lasting those five years.

What the people of Britain did was try to vote Labour out but didn’t have any alternative party of worth to vote for, it wasn’t a matter of voting for a party it was a matter of not voting for a party. Over the last 10 plus years politics in Britain have become something most people are disgusted by but still need. Any new voting system needs to include the use of the “white vote” to show just how many people are don’t agree with anything that is being offered. Simply not voting tells us nothing.

NEW ERA in 10 Downing Street

Look on the bright side my British friends. Our country (America) was ruled by conservatives for 8 years, and look how great we're doing now!