IN REPLY TO GROWSE's wall a'text. Which was fun to read!
Originally Posted by britboy4321
OK, Let's look at the fun fun fun we get with weak government.
- It is very much more expensive, with the beurocracy costs going through the roof. Meeting after meeting after meeting, and trying to get 7 different people to completely agree on all points within a 29 page white paper, it jsut a blimin' nightmare.
Do you have any evidence that that takes any longer under coalition, and that it costs more? Or are you just scaremongering?
David Cameron currently has to phone the lib dems if he wants to pass legislation and get their agreement. that call costs money and time. If there was no coalition, he wouldn't have to do this. Therefore - yup - proved, easily!
Quote:
- Actually No-one gets exactly what they want within the legislation by the government. So in a manner of speaking everyone loses. Ironically this is why we are having a referendum on AV rather than Proportional rep. NO-ONE wants AV -- not the tories, not Labour, not the Libdems. Its a huge compromise - but effectively everyone kinda loses whatever the result ..
I don't like AV, but I like it more than FPTP. And people do get what they want, they just have to think about it a bit more. I'm in favour of our politicians thinking about legistation more carefully. Are you? Anyway, isn't your specific argument against coalitions, rather than the voting system?
The lib-dems dont want AV. The conservatives dont want AV. The Labour party doesn't want AV. We've got a good chance of ending up with AV. Spot the flaw with this super duper coalitions plans?
Quote:
- Small bits of extreme legislation can get through, because those last few votes are essential (eg. OK Mr BNP - we need your 6 votes so desperately, what do we need to do for you to get them?)
You should go and tally up the motions and legislation that gets broad cross-party support.
er, what? I'm talking about legislation where they require minor coalition members support. Read, digest, think, type! In that order!
Quote:
- The government is VERY slow reacting. Earthquake in Japan? Shall we send aid? Well, let's have a 6 week negotiation period with all the members of the coalition to decide how much, and work out the other 17 bits of legislation that need to change to get the votes we need. Oh, everyone's dead? Ooops ..
See my previous point. If there's an issue which has cross-bench support on issues such as national security or emergency aid, the government can be very quick to act. This would be no different in a coalition.
Who is talking about cross party support? Of course if the whole house wants something, it kinda happens. Whats that got to do with anything?
Quote:
- Governments are less honest. They produce a manifesto - and can't implement any of it because some part of the coalition or other complains and wants changes. So they put the whole lot in the bin, and just say to the opposition who would normally skin them alive for this: 'er, no-one got voted in, all our promises are mute .. hohoho'
I don't recall any majority government sticking to their manifesto.
Virtually all the points of all recent manifestos have been implemented. Silliest part of your reply I'm afraid. And 'They're all pretty bad so it doesn't matter if they become worse' is a naff argument.
Quote:
- No bold steps can be taken as people that frankly don't care about whether there is a major train route built in London or not, think 'Everyone wants this to work, so I'm going to say no JUST so I can wheel and deal for a leisure centre in Grimsby'. It actually CAUSES friction where there is absolutely no decent reason for friction - and then we're back YET AGAIN to meeting after meeting after meeting to try and work it out.
No, it just means that bold action actually has to be thought about properly in order to garner the support it needs from the house. I'm against reckless, impulsive government, as a general rule.
Wrong. If I am the party leader for 'Britboy's beer party' and my parties vote is essential for some massive rail link to be built across the country, I'm going to add 'And all of Britboys constituents get a free barrel of beer each' - and guess what .. there's not a SINGLE THING the Tories I'm in a coalition with can do about it. To get their rail link - they have to give me the beer. This is called the government 'begin weak'.
Quote:
- U-turns are very prominent - as people compromise more elsewhere to change legislation they don't like
I don't really understand what you're talking about here. U-turns tend to be fairly prominent and widely reported whatever the government is
Another 'relative' statement. U-turns will be more prominent. The 'They already happen quite a lot so it doesn't matter if they happen a very lot' argument is flawed.
Quote:
- The moment any member of the coalition disagrees whole-heartedly with the legislation and isn't prepared to compromise - the whole lot hits the dustbin. So if 1 person in the coalition is unreasonable ('I will only vote on anything if Grimsby gets an international airport, full stop')- the whole gig becomes a farce
Eh? If one current Liberal MP disagrees with every other member of the coalition government, it has no bearing on whether a particular bill gets passed. This is because the size of the coalition has a hosue majority of more than 1. I'd suggest you actually read up on how these things work, because it looks like you haven't a clue.
Lol. One party. Not one human being! Read slower! And yes, the 'we all must wear yellow hats' party could scupper every single bit of legislation bought to the house if it doesn't involve 'wearing yellow hats' as a sub-clause. As mentioned previously, they can't be whipped.
Quote:
Or, to sum it up into 1 word -- dithering.
Might I suggest some other words, such as 'scaremongering'?
This entire thing is a moot point anyway, because you're arguing that AV produces coalitions and that coalitions are weaker. And yet you've not shown any evidence of either point.
Evidence produced in earlier post to Hatter the Mad. Sorry fella! weak government ain't a very good thing -- there's a reason we forced it on Germany after WW2!
