Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Richard]

that is scandalous

what was wrong with the previous system?

While there are more important things to concern ourselves with like how the alliance of anti Labour political parties can work together to get us out of the debt and deficit mess they have left us with I am amazed that people would get their knickers in a twist quite frankly, especially as this sort of guarantees a stable government.

But if you are still losing sleep then write to your MP and explain your complete outrage

[tonyh29]

Come on then Tony as this is the subject of the day, what are your views?

I remember various Tory supporters "demanding" me to put forward my views during the election process, or is this another "rule" that has been ripped up?

I've never known you answer a question before but if you can point me to where you actually answered the "demands" then I'll consider it :-)

Tbh I've not actually seen all of what transpired yet .. when i left on Tuesday the talk was of a rainbow alliance , so 22:00 last night was the first i knew of a coalition .. from the snippets I've read the 55% is just to stop someone playing silly buggers on a vote and trying to collapse the coalition , isn't it ?

I would have preferred a Tory minority government as it would have resulted in the other parties playing silly buggers and blocking the emergency Budget , which i think would have triggered a new election that the Tories would have won with a clear majority ...

[drat01]

Labour being booted from power was a great day for civil liberties so long may it continue

Yes those new ConDem people have really shown us what we will look forward to - one rule so far and already an erosion of them

WHat has the proposal of an additional rule as to how parliament behaves, in terms of its own system for what to do after a vote of no confidence got to do with civil liberties?

(Note: - "Nothing" is the correct answer).

It is valid to criticise the proposal as being a change to an (unwritten) constitution, but then again MPs will have the opportunity to reject the proposed change.

It seems reasonable to me, for the benefit of the country, for stable government. Putting in place a new, extra rule which is aimed at stopping the tories from opportunistically pulling the plug at a time they feel best suits them whilst also tying the LDs to act responsibly and not strop off in a hissy fit - to act in the best interests of the Country, not of the MPs or of Parties is a good thing.

Just listening to the radio, reading papers and internets it seems an awful lot of people just can't get their heads round what has happened. A lot oare through force of habit, or through tribalism still more interested in pure party politics than the act of governing the country.

I gues it will take a while to get used to, or alternatively the people on the attack from the start will poison the mood and and weaken the will of the people involved to actually continue to work together.

Disagree Pete, it has a lot to do with civil liberties. The whole process we had before was a fair and just one and even Tory MP's are questioning now the enforced protectionism changes that the ConDem's are implementing.

There is also some confusion among constitutional experts. Professor Peter Hennessy, of Queen Mary University of London University, told the BBC it looked like "very very iffy politics indeed" and there was a "certain brutal efficiency... about traditional confidence votes that one is enough and confidence votes under our system trump everything else".

stable gvmt is one thing but all this is is a removal of the ability to effectively question them. As said if Labour had introduced this the outrage on here would have been massive. Protectionism of self interests is not another way of saying what is best for the country and what has been part of our setup (and has worked) for many many years.

Often we have seen laws changed that are as a result of actions no one could have seen coming, this though is a pure selfish act in order that the ConDem's can stay in power without any challenge for at least 5 years. For me the surprising thing is how easy some have accepted it

[Demitri_C]

what annoys me the most about this coalition is the media. They want it to fail, failure sells papers not success.

i cannot agree more. the worst being the mirror, tehy were so anti-tory at the start it was hilarous. they even did a humilating piece saying that everyone would boycott itv and britains got talent because simon cowell backed the tories in the sun. what an idiotic thinsg to say!

It's like with the world cup, you watch the sleazy stories and other stuff about players surface in the next month, I don't give a shit what the papers say, their articles certainly don't want England to win the world cup. Remember them headlining a story about the players gambling thousands in the hotel room at the last world cup (or the one before) where owen bet £50k in a game of poker with other players.

i have been saying this exact same thing for years, completely agree the media do not acre their agenda is just to sell papaers at any cost.

It will be the same with this coalition government, they want to know what divides the coalition and only that, not what brings them together, where there IS agreement. They will want to try and fragment wherever possible because it sells papers. Even Murdcock will probably want this because it's in his interest to do so.

well that rag sun ha sso far backed them but no doubt they will turn on them in due course as they usually do

I have yet to see an article where it talks positively about the coming together of the parties, looking at the brighter side of the picture than the darker.

yeah its patehtic. instead of trying to make people look at it froma positive point of view its all doom and gloom to try make them fail

The Question Time audience in yesterdays episode were clearly retarded, one juvenile actually said that the 'referendum on AV would be voted against'. I felt like jumping into my computer and saying 'DO YOU KNOW WHAT A **** REFERENDUM IS YOU RETARD!?

alot of the questions asked were retarded yesterday, like should lib dem voters feel betrayed? well they got in government didnt they! so both parties had to make a sacrifice for the benefit of teh country. was just stupid

[Richard]

Anybody else think Samantha Cameron looks like Nicolas Cage?

She is like the UK previously shagged by a Thatcher loving tory and will no doubt be done again once the next couple of months are out of the way.

What a very pleasant comment.

[blandy]

Disagree Pete, it has a lot to do with civil liberties. The whole process we had before was a fair and just one and even Tory MP's are questioning now the enforced protectionism changes that the ConDem's are implementing....

stable gvmt is one thing but all this is is a removal of the ability to effectively question them.

Often we have seen laws changed that are as a result of actions no one could have seen coming, this though is a pure selfish act in order that the ConDem's can stay in power without any challenge for at least 5 years. For me the surprising thing is how easy some have accepted it

I agree wth some of that. I still don't see that it's anything to do with civil liberties - the rights of the citizen, basically.

To me it's about the machinations by which parliament operates.

I agree about laws being introduced for one honourable or reasonable purpose and ending up being used for another. Anti terrorism laws being used by councils to nab people for puting their bins out on the wrong day, or whatever.

TBH if the coalition one was a minority Lab/LD one, you're probably right, I would have been going mad about it.

I suspect the tories complaining are the ones who quite fancy pulling the rug on the coalition asap and having another election, they'd hope to win. In other words self interest rather than genuine concern for the (unwritten) constitution.

[snowychap]

It is valid to criticise the proposal as being a change to an (unwritten) constitution, but then again MPs will have the opportunity to reject the proposed change.

I hope that when this is debated, it happens in the spirit of finding the best way to safeguard fixed term parliaments and not look after the interests of any one party or any one administration.

I really hope that the idea of fixed term parliaments doesn't just get binned on this one issue and that other ways (instead of this super-majority) of safeguarding are investigated and proposed.

My fear would be that it would be this super-majority (backed as part of the coalition deal) or nothing. That would be a mistake.

[Demitri_C]

She is like the UK previously shagged by a Thatcher loving tory and will no doubt be done again once the next couple of months are out of the way.

that is harsh ian. we know you dispise the tories which your allowed to do but what does she have to do with anything?

[kidlewis]

She is like the UK previously shagged by a Thatcher loving tory and will no doubt be done again once the next couple of months are out of the way.

that is harsh ian. we know you dispise the tories which your allowed to do but what does she have to do with anything?

she didn't vote for NuFail

[drat01]

Fixed term parliament - how would this work with a minority Gvmt? - could you not have the instance where a Gvmt would be unable to get anything through for 5 years and we are stuck with this setup?

what is wrong with the current setup?

is this the electoral reform that people wanted?

If parties are not allowed a free vote on this, do you agree then that it shows that this is introduced purely on selfish party protectionism?

should we have a written constitution?

are we heading for an elected PM?

Note: not all Q's at you

[drat01]

She is like the UK previously shagged by a Thatcher loving tory and will no doubt be done again once the next couple of months are out of the way.

that is harsh ian. we know you dispise the tories which your allowed to do but what does she have to do with anything?

pull your neck in - it was a joke much in the same way as jokes about people's disabilities were fair game - or again have we now changed the rules?

and for the record I think she is as ugly as sin, whichever political leader she is sleeping with

[leviramsey]

I'm not sure either of those statements is true, Liberal Party ideology has always been about Liberty and Freedom and that definitely goes against the grain of a good deal of the current Labour Party control freakery. This idea that the two parties are closer in ideology isn't particularly true, they may have been close on certain policies but the underlying thought behind them they are probably closer to the Tories.

The LibDems generally start in a similar location to the Tories in terms of philosophical base (both accept at some basic level that the state exists to serve the individual) and generally end up in a similar location to Labour in terms of what the consequences of that philosophical base are; that's how I phrased it at some point.

It's probably easier to form a coalition if there's basic philosophical agreement and disagreement on the ends (as it's easy enough to either agree to disagree (e.g. Trident) or to choose one end but make it clear that it arises from the shared philosophical base... as such it's not a matter of a holy war) than if there's basic philosophical disagreement that agrees on the ends (I think to how willing left-wing authoritarians and right-wing authoritarians are to get in a scrap, despite having nearly identical visions of society). Very often brothers fight each other more than they do "outsiders".

I think one reason the LibDems preferred Tory coalition to rainbow coalition is that the [protest] votes they'd lose in coalition with the Tories would be in constituencies that lean Labour and the LibDems won't be defending at the next election while the votes they'd lose if they went into rainbow coalition would be the votes at the margin in constituencies where the Tories are strong (either by a swing of anti-Labour LibDem voters to the Tories or Tories more energized to vote anti-LibDem). Undoubtedly there's more votes to be lost in the former (which if PR comes about is a big problem) but in a constituency-based system the latter costs them most of their seats. Further, the stability of coalitions and the likelihood of a quick election has to be considered: if the LibDems can be seen in five years to have kept the Tories from **** things up (and things don't get **** up, of course), there probably won't be as many voters thinking "OMG, they're Tories in disguise!" as if there's an election next year. A rainbow coalition is not going to be stable, and the fixed-term parliament reduces the chance of a quick election.

[Demitri_C]

pull your neck in

i think thats physically impossible

- it was a joke much in the same way as jokes about people's disabilities

havent seen many joke son eher about peoples disabilities

were fair game - or again have we now changed the rules?

rules? who said you broke any rules?

[snowychap]

Fixed term parliament - how would this work with a minority Gvmt? - could you not have the instance where a Gvmt would be unable to get anything through for 5 years and we are stuck with this setup?

I doubt it. As I suggested earlier, the need would be to safeguard against an incumbent government bypassing the stricture of fixed terms (effectively keeping the current system whereby the calling of an election can be used to beenfit the incumbent government party/parties). Genuine lack of confidence in a government could still force a dissolution.

As far as I've heard, the Scottish parliament has a system with a super-majority of 66% with other conditions and checks.

I don't think it's unfeasible to design a system where one is not stuck with a completely lame duck government.

what is wrong with the current setup?

What bit of the current set up?

is this the electoral reform that people wanted?

Fixed term parliaments were in the Lib Dem manifesto and, I believe, the Labour manifesto.

If parties are not allowed a free vote on this, do you agree then that it shows that this is introduced purely on selfish party protectionism?

I can see why it might set a dangerous precedent for the future of this particular coalition government to allow free votes on those things which were agreed through negotiations as the basis for a coalition.

I'd have free votes on everything, personally, but we haven't got to a political system where that would work.

should we have a written constitution?

We do.

We don't have a single, codified constitutional document.

If we were to go for that single document then it ought to be a constitutional settlement conference (something I'd be in favour of) which would not just involve politicians and political parties. It wouldn't be a quick process, though.

are we heading for an elected PM?

Directly elected by the electorate? No, I don't think so.

Elected by Parliament (or at least by those members of the governing coalition)? Maybe.

[leviramsey]

Tony - to a degree I agree with you the LibDems are now part of the Tory party pure and simple. They cannot and will not oppose the Tory party at elections. The messaging they will give at the outstanding election in a few days, means that they have to put out a joint message or it shows up exactly what this alliance is about. If this is a coalition gvmt how come that they will have separate candidates?

Germany has constituencies (in addition to PR) and the Free Democrats run against the Christian Democrats and the Greens run against the Social Democrats.

Progressive change in society requires [gasp!] change. Perhaps the psychological and cultural changes required (away from red/blue civil wars and such) are too much for Britain, however.

[mjmooney]

Does the US not have its very own red/blue civil wars?

[leviramsey]

The LibDems have sold out and now are effectively part of the Tory party, and as such we are back to a two party setup in the UK.

It's certainly a dilemma for the left-leaning Lib Dem rank-and-file.

Join New New Labour? Or start up New Lib Dems?

Go to the Liberals? Then again, since the Liberals formed to protest a perceived Social Democrat takeover, they might not appreciate Labour-leaning folks coming in...

I guess there is the New/Continuing SDP...

[blandy]

..Progressive change in society requires [gasp!] change. Perhaps the psychological and cultural changes required (away from red/blue civil wars and such) are too much for Britain, however.

I agree, Levi. I hope it won't be too much, though there's a risk that it's so ingrained in people in the media and parliament, or a lot of them, that they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the current self serving system.

But the system is inappropriate and unrepresentative and needs to change. Hopefully we can catch up with many other countries and have a more open democratic system where media moguls, big business and the like have less influence and normal voters more influence.

[drat01]

..Progressive change in society requires [gasp!] change. Perhaps the psychological and cultural changes required (away from red/blue civil wars and such) are too much for Britain, however.

I agree, Levi. I hope it won't be too much, though there's a risk that it's so ingrained in people in the media and parliament, or a lot of them, that they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the current self serving system.

But the system is inappropriate and unrepresentative and needs to change. Hopefully we can catch up with many other countries and have a more open democratic system where media moguls, big business and the like have less influence and normal voters more influence.

Pete, it seems that a fair few would disagree with your last bit. The trouble is though the system we have now, means that we are actually going the other way, especially with changes that will keep the biggest objectors to PR in power without a fair vote against

Note from wiki: According to the German constitution, the Bundestag can be dissolved by the federal president if the Chancellor loses a vote of confidence, or if a newly elected Bundestag proves unable to elect a chancellor with absolute majority.

[leviramsey]

Fixed term parliament - how would this work with a minority Gvmt? - could you not have the instance where a Gvmt would be unable to get anything through for 5 years and we are stuck with this setup?

As I understand it, a minority government could still topple with a simple majority... it would just require a new coalition to form (or the old to re-form, perhaps). The 55% threshold is simply for Parliament to force a new election.

With the recall idea being proposed, there is a safeguard against a government doing nothing (if the people don't want the government doing nothing... I myself am quite happy with the idea of having a government do nothing for 5 years*): 10% of the electorate can force a by-election in a constituency. Put enough by-elections together in an organized campaign and you can get to 55% to force new elections.

Indeed, I think that's a good point about 55% as opposed to 66%... 55% realistically gives the people more power than the parties when it comes to deciding if a new election is needed.

*: which is why I wholeheartedly pulled for the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections and will wholeheartedly pull for the Republicans in the 2010 elections... gridlock is good: it puts the brakes on a more abusive state.