The mere fact of the coalition is no longer the most interesting thing about it. The state is in for radical reform

"Within a few years, Britain could be a country where general practitioners (family doctors) commission most secondary-care, voters elect local police commissioners, schools can be run by almost anyone, and companies and charities compete to get the chronically unemployed into work."

And Cameron can get his next job governing Magical-Pixie Dreamland.

I actually voted for the Lib Dems in the hope of getting a hung parliament. The performance of the previous parliament demonstated the problem of one party dominating the system for too long. The hope of a coalition government is that it focuses the mind of the MPs to actually do something to keep the voters happy instead just slagging the opposition.

That was the hope anyway. Since then there has been a lot of talk, but only time will tell as to the results.

I rather like the way this government is moving so far, and I think the disgruntled Tories will end up backing the reform package. Tories want the constituencies bigger, and the Lib-Dems want to get rid of FPTP, thats why its a two for one deal.

I find it hard to see evidence to support your contention that the main theme of the Coalition government's programme is decentralisation. A lot has been said about this, but very few actions support this to date. For instance, the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies, in effect, has been a power grab by Whitehall of functions previously enacted at the sub-national level. Its far too early to judge this government as decentralising - the early signs are not positive.

The '45 -'51 government was not as short-lived as all that!

One of the problems with a coalition is that one cannot vote for it. But pollsters could ask that question. Moderation usually pays in electoral terms, radical moderation might pay dividends?