If Cameron can't get enough support to pass his Queen's Speech then he has no mandate to be PM. This is how our system works and that is the system that Cameron himself has opposed change to.
Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
If Cameron can't get enough support to pass his Queen's Speech then he has no mandate to be PM. This is how our system works and that is the system that Cameron himself has opposed change to.
I think the party that wins the most seats should be leading any coalition. I think it would be totally screwy for 2nd and 3rd place to join forces to topple the party that came actually first.
As opposed to them being enshrined in law? At least this idea is original. George's idea of passing a law to prevent the government raising taxes was proposed by Alistair Darling at the last election (and ridiculed by the Tories for being a stupid idea).
TBH ideas like these wouldn't be needed if the parties stuck to their manifesto pledges in the first place.
Last edited:
Not to mention it shows just how worried they are that we don't trust them..
Why? If the 1st placed party can't find anyone else to back them or those that will aren't sufficient then there isn't sufficient mandate for their policies. To allow them to form the government regardless is to ignore the will of everyone else.
I think they deserve first crack of the whip, as it were, but no more than that. In a hung parliament no single party has won sufficient backing to claim sole right to form a government. It then depends on who can put together sufficient support to get their policies through.
Nice idea, but totally unworkable in practice. How would it work? Would Labour/SNP/Green/Plaid MPs have to betray the people who voted for them by voting in favour of a completely different set of ideas and principles? Or would they abstain as an alternative to opposing the government, removing the Democratic representation of those people who voted for them? Both scenarios are totally hideous and unworkable for different reasons.
I hadn't realised Darling had proposed it before; my respect for him just dropped a notch. It's a stupid idea. Especially as it has no actual effect since laws cannot bind parliament from amending them so if they want to raise taxes regardless they still can.
Exactly changing the law to prevent tax rises is meaningless as parliament could just pass another law amending it at a later date
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Libdems will deal with either.
Assuming they hold enough seats to make a difference.
Last thing I wasn't to see is any of the Northern Ireland parties having any say in Westminster, they have adequately demonstrated for the past 15 years that in 3 terms they have been unable to govern or generate anything of good in a province of 2 million, any influence over the 60 million will have a negative effect for the entire UK.
You're deluded if you think labours "recovery" was a viable one. Spend more money we don't have and cut tax revenues.
The VAT cut was a vote-grabber and nothing more.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 179
- Location
- Worcestershire
So are you both saying you'd simply ban all Muslims from entering the U
I could only stomach about 30 seconds before switching it off, what a vile man. Most of the points he raises you could say about any major religion
Er, no.
And how do you know `most of the points he raises .....` you only watched 30 seconds.
`Sweden` a lesson to us all.
https://youtu.be/RZsvdg1dkJ4
To borrow from your `sig` Gobbo. `You aint seen nothing yet`
Last edited:
That's odd given the majority of experts agree that it was the right course of action. That notion is backed up when you look at the amount of austerity applied to various European nations. The more austerity, the worse they have performed. We were just lucky that George realised he was wrong back in 2012.
The delusion is that what is true of personal finance should also be true of government finance.
That's odd given the majority of experts agree that it was the right course of action. That notion is backed up when you look at the amount of austerity applied to various European nations. The more austerity, the worse they have performed. There is only one case study in history for successful austerity; Canada in the 90's. Every other time it has been applied, it has failed. We were just lucky that George realised his mistake when he did.
The delusion is that what is true of personal finance should also be true of government finance. It's a great myth that has been perpetuated by the Conservative party and the right wing press since the run up to the 2010 election. "We've maxed out the credit card!" etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,406
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Why should the party that that a majority of people dislike get into power..
There is something Very simple likely to happen- more people are liekly to vote for anti-Tory parties than people voting for anti-labour parties. That is why labour has such good chances.
Many nations didnt have a near 10% deficit, which was why they needed little to no austerity. The stability pact in the euro zone state 3% as a sustainable deficit to run (yes I know we are not in it) and even then you are spending more than you earn. At 10%, if you carry on as if nothing had happened at what point do you think the deficit would be unmanageable?
For the Billionth time. Labour don't need to make any deal with the SNP. IT IS IN SNPs interest to vote yes to labour and no to the Torieis, there is rally no reason to believe otherwise. That is all that will be required.
Last edited:
Yeah but the UK voted against P.R.
You reap what you sow.
I respect what people want even if I don't agree with it.
- Status