which is good imo.
Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
which is good imo.
i would have thought that consitutionally, if the coalition fell apart, an election would have to be called
You could argue that, you could also argue that the result of their hypothetical high opinion poll ratings could be directly attributable to the Lib Dem's contributions to the coalition, but nobody would care because all they'd see is David Cameron's face. More to the point, calling an election under such circumstances would be unnecessary 'fixing what isn't broken', wouldn't it (presuming their opinion poll results are reflective of how well they are doing in government)?
I must say, the proposed legislative program is the most progressive for a very long time, I am not seeing much bad at all, and it does seem that Cameron and Clegg are setting up for a future where coalitions are more common and more accepted (hence the 55% supermajority to dissolve parliament, it would require in most cases significant government rebellion, which makes it equivalent to now.
just out of interest, of those who want/expect this to fail, would you be saying the same thing if the same parliamentary plan was put forward by a lib/lab coalition?
just out of interest, of those who want/expect this to fail, would you be saying the same thing if the same parliamentary plan was put forward by a lib/lab coalition?
The 55% issue is one which should be scrutinised further i think but lets not get carried away and start acting like we live in china or something. Previously if a government had 51% of seats then the same thing applies. Technically they could keep themselves in power but it would be political suicide.
I think it's the opposite, it forces the small parties to fall in line on one side or the other, and forces the opposition to not block stuff for the sake of it.
No party wants to be seen to be blocking the country from functioning, and since if they do not have enough votes for a no confidence vote then no election can be called it forces them to work together with the government.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,038
- Location
- Colchester, Essex
They've agreed that the Lib Dems will argue against new nuclear power construction, BUT they will abstain from the vote, meaning that if labour supported it (which they do), they can vote with the conservatives to get an easy majority
But apart from Major's government, most governments of the last 30 years could not have been toppled by such a small rebellion within government. Blair in 1997 for example had a majority of 179, over 66% of MPs.
This measure replicates the current setup while providing a little more protection and impetus to work together in the event of a coalition government.
Without it, and if we move to a system that generates more hung parliaments, and therefore more coalition governments, the power shift would be from the majority party to the minority party in the government, which would give them more power than appropriate to hold their coalition partner to ransom. This protects both sides, as the majority party can't call an election just because it suits them, and the minority party can't withdraw their support and cause an election to be called.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me as the electoral system is going to be reformed. It's also common in other countries where coalitions are more common to have a similar requirement for a supermajority to call an extraordinary general election.
55% is also pretty low for a supermajority requirement, it's lower than the three-fifths requirement to prevent a filibuster in the senate for example, and a two-thirds majority to propose a consititutional amendment.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Ah, OK . . . I think.
So . . . the Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition will produce some undefined ugly result.
This will in some unexplained way be New Labour's fault but since nobody will remember that, it doesn't matter.
A large proportion of Liberal Democrat voters will never forgive them . . . presumably because the Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition produced some ugly result
.
.
.
still makes no sense to me
Perhaps he means that people who voted Liberal Democrat in May 2010 will vote for some even Newer Labour in five (or less) years time because the Tories will make sure that the Liberal Democrats carry the can for the necessary swingeing cuts . . . yes, that's probably it
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
As much as it irks me to say it, I agree with you.
Now, where's that large bottle of Vodka?
Ah, OK . . . I think.
So . . . the Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition will produce some undefined ugly result.
This will in some unexplained way be New Labour's fault but since nobody will remember that, it doesn't matter.
A large proportion of Liberal Democrat voters will never forgive them . . . presumably because the Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition produced some ugly result
.
.
.
still makes no sense to me
Perhaps he means that people who voted Liberal Democrat in May 2010 will vote for some even Newer Labour in five (or less) years time because the Tories will make sure that the Liberal Democrats carry the can for the necessary swingeing cuts . . . yes, that's probably it
No, people will think Tories are making cuts because Tories are evil and they want to screw the poor and give money to the rich. People will forget that the cuts are needed because Brown and Labour screwed everyone
Putting aside my assumption that this is just your usual trolling...
Whoever was going to be in power for this parliament is going to have an ugly result. That being very large cuts in spending. Labour were going to do it, the Lib Dems were going to do it, Conservatives were going to do it. While it is necessary (all three parties having to do it would suggest it is something that needs to be done) the general public won't like it, the unions won't like it and obviously the workers on the sharp end certainly won't like it.
The reason it will be Labour's fault (which has been explained and ignored so many times already in the last year or two) was because of their spending plans prior to the financial crisis. Even ignoring the effects of Labours deregulation on the industry their prolificate spending and running up a deficit in the boom years meant we were very badly positioned to weather the (financial) storm. It seems Brown believed his own propoganda about eliminating boom and bust.
The afore mentioned austerity measures and the inevitable tax rises.
Has that cleared things up? I had thought it was relatively obvious.
Possibly. But if we are wishlisting rather than actually giving it solid rational thought I can hope instead for boundary changes, Scottish Independance, massive infighting between the left and far left of the Labour Party and a change to party funding which would hopefully kill off the Labour party for good.
Whoever was going to be in power for this parliament is going to have an ugly result. That being very large cuts in spending. Labour were going to do it, the Lib Dems were going to do it, Conservatives were going to do it. While it is necessary (all three parties having to do it would suggest it is something that needs to be done) the general public won't like it, the unions won't like it and obviously the workers on the sharp end certainly won't like it.
The reason it will be Labour's fault (which has been explained and ignored so many times already in the last year or two) was because of their spending plans prior to the financial crisis. Even ignoring the effects of Labours deregulation on the industry their prolificate spending and running up a deficit in the boom years meant we were very badly positioned to weather the (financial) storm. It seems Brown believed his own propoganda about eliminating boom and bust.
The afore mentioned austerity measures and the inevitable tax rises.
still makes no sense to me
Has that cleared things up? I had thought it was relatively obvious.
Perhaps he means that people who voted Liberal Democrat in May 2010 will vote for some even Newer Labour in five (or less) years time because the Tories will make sure that the Liberal Democrats carry the can for the necessary swingeing cuts . . . yes, that's probably it
Possibly. But if we are wishlisting rather than actually giving it solid rational thought I can hope instead for boundary changes, Scottish Independance, massive infighting between the left and far left of the Labour Party and a change to party funding which would hopefully kill off the Labour party for good.
LD will support it if there's a decent case for it, which there is. Common sense will prevail for once.
That's a feature, not a bug.
The ability to call an election at the time most advantageous to them gives an unreasonable advantage to the currently ruling party at general election time. It also leads to continued uncertainty: witness the last two years of Brown's government with the constant will-he-won't-he speculation over when an election will be.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 8,512
- Location
- Glocestershire
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Yeah, I'm sure.... But if we are wishlisting rather than actually giving it solid rational thought I can hope instead for boundary changes, Scottish Independance, massive infighting between the left and far left of the Labour Party and a change to party funding which would hopefully kill off the Labour party for good.
Being somewhat keener on democracy and fairness to all than you are, I will be sorry to see Great Britain revert to a medieval feudal system based entirely on power, wealth, greed and selfishness under the Tories
