88 replies to this topic

[Libains]

Those were the days...

On a more serious note, if anybody correctly predicts what happens in government for the next year, I'd give them an entire plate of cookies. There's no wonder the Pound is falling against other currencies, this is essentially turmoil atm and I, for one, am loathing it...

[Ion Cannon!]

AJ, on 8 May 2010, 15:25, said:

Those were the days...

On a more serious note, if anybody correctly predicts what happens in government for the next year, I'd give them an entire plate of cookies. There's no wonder the Pound is falling against other currencies, this is essentially turmoil atm and I, for one, am loathing it...

Whatever government gets in by the very nature of the situation they are going to have to make very unpopular decisions. Its a poison chalice really. It would be nice if they could all put aside their differences and form an emergency government or something. It would also mean as all parties had taken part in making the unpopular decisions that the next election wouldn't be a disaster.

The other possibility is cameron scheduling another general election soon to try and get a larger majority, as even if a lib-con pact is formed they still won't have a very large majority - about 30 IIRC. However many people are anti-tory, myself being one of them, so I doubt he would get much more of the vote.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 08 May 2010 - 15:59.

[CodeCat]

And a coalition is unusual? We've had nothing but coalition governments here since the day I was born...

[Libains]

Last Uk coalition was 1974, and it lasted a little under 6 months. It doesn't happen here, ever.

[Ion Cannon!]

CodeCat, on 8 May 2010, 21:38, said:

And a coalition is unusual? We've had nothing but coalition governments here since the day I was born...

First past the post generally results in majority governments, so yes it is.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CodeCat, on 8 May 2010, 21:38, said:

And a coalition is unusual? We've had nothing but coalition governments here since the day I was born...

Only if you live in Germany.

[Brad]

I'm quite excited to see what happens actually, yet at the same time I'm tense.

Its all very annoying, actually. I'm not sure who, in this particular election, I support (not that it matters mind you, I can't vote). I can never be happy with a Tory government though, so it would have to be a labour unfortunately, and even then they haven't exactly done much to help anything recently. Though, they have done some good.

I would love to see the Lib Dems with a larger vote in their pockets, they have some interesting ideas, though some of their interests/policies are just plain silly.

[CJ]

Seriously, I think UK should change it's voting system, and make it similar to most of all the other countries, where the winning president doesn't have to share his power, or try to do silly coalitions...

[BeefJeRKy]

Thing is there's no president in the UK. It's a parliamentary system with the Prime Minister being head of state.

[CJ]

I know that, I'm not that dumb, just saying that the Prime Minister should be chosen like the presidents are chosen : with a real election where you vote for the guy, and not the party.

[Chyros]

Argetlam, on 9 May 2010, 11:17, said:

Seriously, I think UK should change it's voting system, and make it similar to most of all the other countries, where the winning president doesn't have to share his power, or try to do silly coalitions...

What's wrong with a little counterweight? Personally I'm convinced having a president is the absolute worst thing you can do. Like you said, a president doesn't have to share his power, which has led to so many dictators now I'm really not sure how ANYONE can advocate this type of government. Have you ever seen or heard of a dictatorship in a coalition government?

[Wizard]

I am all for voting for the leading member of a party, or more specifically a government, in any form, but I do not want, nor condone the existance of an 'executive' branch of government in the UK. This would not work for us. One person in power is not ideal in 99% of situations tbh.

[Alias]

Argetlam, on 9 May 2010, 19:17, said:

Seriously, I think UK should change it's voting system, and make it similar to most of all the other countries, where the winning president doesn't have to share his power, or try to do silly coalitions...

An electoral system with multiple parties is one of the most sensible things in modern politics. If it's a two party system like America nothing at all gets done.

The electoral reform that needs to be done in the UK isn't to do with party limiting, it's to do with how the parties actually get elected. First past the post is so ridiculously unfair against smaller parties and you end up with a huge proportion of wasted votes.

Edited by Alias, 09 May 2010 - 11:37.

[Shirou]

The UK has, just like the US, a district voting system. In other words, the system that got the douchebag Bush in office while he had less votes also pushed down the Lib Dems. Clegg has his voters all over the country but only in very few places he holds a majority, where the votes actually count.

Changing this system is one of the things high on the Lib Dem agenda and if the two big parties need him to form a coalition there is some hope for the UK that this can get changed.

Dr. Strangelove, on 9 May 2010, 1:40, said:

CodeCat, on 8 May 2010, 21:38, said:

And a coalition is unusual? We've had nothing but coalition governments here since the day I was born...

Only if you live in Germany.

There are only three EU countries, namely the UK, France and another minor country, that is governed by a party holding the majority. So yeah, not only in Germany. + Codecat lives in Holland.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 09 May 2010 - 11:45.

[CJ]

Chyros, on 9 May 2010, 12:23, said:

Argetlam, on 9 May 2010, 11:17, said:

Seriously, I think UK should change it's voting system, and make it similar to most of all the other countries, where the winning president doesn't have to share his power, or try to do silly coalitions...

What's wrong with a little counterweight? Personally I'm convinced having a president is the absolute worst thing you can do. Like you said, a president doesn't have to share his power, which has led to so many dictators now I'm really not sure how ANYONE can advocate this type of government. Have you ever seen or heard of a dictatorship in a coalition government?

See how things are going mad in France, the party at the power (which is the UMP) is trying to vote a law against Burqas (or I don't know how you call these things some islamist women wear to hide their faces, except for the eyes) and the second biggest party (PS) is trying to sabotage this law, just to annoy the UMP, while themselves would like to see a similar law voted...
Sure, having a guy controlling a country alone could lead it to becoming a dictatorship, but on the other side you can't expect a coalition between Labour and the Conservatives to give a good result.

[Alias]

That's exactly the reason why you need more than two parties...

[BeefJeRKy]

Having too many parties like in Lebanon (the number is around 15) is highly inefficient though. I think when you have 3-6 parties, you tend to do well. Canada could certainly use some more parties beyond Libs, Cons and NDP (Part Quebecois is only concerned with secession afaik and the Greens are a joke).

[CodeCat]

If there are too many parties, IMO that's a sign that you're trying to unite too many different interests into one government, especially if many of them are local parties. Realistically the country should be split up.

[BeefJeRKy]

CodeCat, on 9 May 2010, 17:23, said:

If there are too many parties, IMO that's a sign that you're trying to unite too many different interests into one government, especially if many of them are local parties. Realistically the country should be split up.

Practically it isn't viable. The country is too small among other things. I can open up a separate discussion about this but I won't go on further in this thread.

[Alias]

Back on the real topic, then.

Quote

Britain's main opposition parties have voiced hope they could soon strike a deal on forming a new government to break a four-day post-election deadlock.

Negotiating teams from David Cameron's centre-right Conservatives and Nick Clegg's centrist Liberal Democrats held 90 minutes of talks on Monday morning (local time) before coming out to consult with their leaders.

Lib Dem negotiator David Laws later told reporters that party members wanted to hear more about the offer from the Conservatives on the issue of education spending, a fairer taxation system and voting reform.

William Hague, one of the four Conservative negotiators, said there had been "further progress" in the talks.

"The negotiating teams are working really well together," he said.

Earlier, Mr Clegg said politicians were "working flat out, around the clock" to secure a deal, promising an announcement "as soon as is possible".

If the two parties strike a deal, it would likely pave the way for Mr Cameron to become prime minister, taking over from Gordon Brown who is still in office despite his Labour party falling to second in Thursday's polls.

Mr Brown's centre-left Labour has been putting pressure on the two opposition parties to announce an accord or admit failure in the hope the Lib Dems could still do a deal with his party.

Chancellor of the exchequer Alistair Darling urged the Conservatives and Lib Dems to strike an accord within hours to reassure financial markets and the country as a whole.

"I don't think it will do any good to let this process drag on," he told BBC radio. "I hope by the end of (Monday) they can decide whether they can do a deal or not."

Fears that London's stocks would be hit by the political uncertainty proved unfounded as it surged more than 5 per cent, largely on the European Union agreement for a huge rescue deal for eurozone countries.

Whether or not the Conservatives and Lib Dems agree a deal, Mr Brown is expected to have to resign within days.

Even if there is no Tory-Lib Dem deal, there are suggestions he could stand aside to make any subsequent talks on a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems easier.

Thursday's general election delivered a hung parliament for the first time since 1974.

The Conservatives won the most seats but under Britain's first-past-the-post voting system, it was not enough for them to govern alone.

Besides the main power-sharing talks, a series of other meetings involving the parties were scheduled throughout the day.

Mr Cameron met Mr Clegg on Sunday for the second time in 24 hours, a further sign the two sides could be inching towards a deal, and the pair spoke again by telephone on Monday.

Mr Brown also met Mr Clegg at the weekend, in a meeting described by sources as "amicable".

One key potential stumbling block the Tories and Lib Dems face is reaching agreement on reforming the voting system. This is one of the Lib Dems' key policies but is opposed by the Conservatives.

http://www.abc.net.a.../10/2895590.htm

[Rich19]

Brown's just announced he's stepping down, at last. Any coalition involving Labour simple can't contain Brown, so at least Labour are facing reality now.

Edited by Rich19, 10 May 2010 - 16:34.

[Ion Cannon!]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ele...010/8672859.stm

Well theres one of the stumbling blocks gone for the libs to form a lib/lab pact, still they would also need PC and the SNP to form a majority, and both of those come off as greedy self interested parties tbh. With both of their leaders demanding more money for their respective nations.

If this is the result the Lab/Lib/SNP/PC - and probably one of the NI parties will command a small majority, but I doubt the public will be happy with another unelected PM. Ah well, at least labour has some prominent politicians who come off well in the media / questiontime.

Please god don't let that slimeball cameron be the PM.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 10 May 2010 - 16:30.

[Libains]

As it stands, that's one good thing that's come of the election. The Scottish bugger can piss off back to Scotland imo.

And Labour - Lib Dem would still not have a considerable majority, no matter what Gordon said in his baby speech. The SNP and PC are way too selfish to get involved with them, so the only infallible coalition would be Tory - Lib Dem, but as a Tory I'd hate that. 6 months tops. This just will not work.

[Ion Cannon!]

AJ, on 10 May 2010, 17:36, said:

As it stands, that's one good thing that's come of the election. The Scottish bugger can piss off back to Scotland imo.

And Labour - Lib Dem would still not have a considerable majority, no matter what Gordon said in his baby speech. The SNP and PC are way too selfish to get involved with them, so the only infallible coalition would be Tory - Lib Dem, but as a Tory I'd hate that. 6 months tops. This just will not work.

The SNP has suggested a progressive alliance already, urging PC on board as well, but yes, they are indeed ultimately selfish.

While the torys and libs do have some common ground, I doubt its enough. I reckon Cameron will form a minority government sooner or late and then go for an early general election. But I wouldn't be suprised if that resulted in much the same result tbh. And if GB is gone by then, its quite possible labour polls would skyrocket.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 10 May 2010 - 18:13.

[Libains]

I wouldn't say Gordon Brown will do much good for Labour in some respects - his leaving has been covered by 'I want to do what is best for the country', but at the end of the day, he and the party he led was a failure in this election, and he's now giving up. Frankly, Milliband is their only option, and Milliband is unacceptable.

Insert irony:



So Gordon is the way forward and they're going to win it under him. Milliband's an annoying little shite who's so far up America's backside you can only see his feet. Oh, and if this Labour - Lib Dem coalition does go ahead, we will, ONCE AGAIN, have an unelected PM (yes I know constitutionally that we do not have an elected PM, but Milliband was not campaigning for the Party, he was not the public face of his party). Frankly, if this coalition goes ahead, and this little bugger gets into any form of power (frankly he has too much of it already), I will entirely give up on this country and its sodding politics, as it's foul, corrupt, and genuinely useless.

Minority government won't work constitutionally really, and an early election will likely result in most people saying exactly the same thing. The country's political system is up shit creek without a paddle (or a majority government), and we're going to go to hell these next few years. Countries/big business will not invest. The financial crisis will not be solved. The value of the pound will drop (which as a result may see us adopt the Euro). And we will have a mess of parties in power who can't agree on anything, which in turn may result in damaging Parliament further (PC and SNP will tear the country to pieces (literally) if they get a whiff of power). And we will have the biggest Party in the country, as elected by the people of Great Britain, leading the opposition.

Best we can hope for now is that Milliband and his Lib Dem buddies absolutely screw up the system, so we can go back to a majority government next election.

For the record tho, any queries on constitutional law gladly received