Cameron steps down as leader of the LibDems - UK politics

[charver]

Nobody cares about a country that still has a royal family.

There's an easy solution to that.

Stop electing people named 'Bush'.

 

[charver]

So what keeps power-hungry freakos from just staying?

5 year limits.

 

[Damocles]

5 year limits.

So there is a regularly scheduled event, if they don't call one within 5 years you have to have another one then?

 

[Damocles]

There's an easy solution to that.

Stop electing people named 'Bush'.

Or "Clinton".

 

[charver]

So there is a regularly scheduled event, if they don't call one within 5 years you have to have another one then?

Yeah, on average there's an election every 4 years.

 

[charver]

Or "Clinton".

Well, i didn't want to be too presumptive or upset Darla and the Gore resurrection fans.

 

[Diuretic]

So what keeps power-hungry freakos from just staying?

Our constitution specifies when an election should be called but it's very rubbery, it specifies a period when the PM must call an election but it's pretty elastic. Personally I would prefer fixed dates.

 

[Damocles]

Our constitution specifies when an election should be called but it's very rubbery, it specifies a period when the PM must call an election but it's pretty elastic. Personally I would prefer fixed dates.

At least you have one, there are other places where they seem to not have any fixed constitution. Term limitations could be changed at will in such a system. I have no trust for a government that isn't limited in such a fashion.

 

[Diuretic]

Governments should be changed like underwear, regularly, to avoid the stink.

I don't like government. I want it gone asap.

 

[Damocles]

Governments should be changed like underwear, regularly, to avoid the stink.

I don't like government. I want it gone asap.

Government is a necessary evil and should be kept to the smallest and least intrusive possible.

 

[Diuretic]

Government is a necessary evil and should be kept to the smallest and least intrusive possible.

And eventuallly removed. A sane society will always be working to free itself from democracy as soon as practicable

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Maybe they will manage to wangle a hung parliament, but that's unlikely to last for long and the inherrent weakness of coalition governments would likely damage them and make their goal of electoral reform less desirable in the eyes of the public. We don't like weak governments.

The weakness of coalition governments are usually vastly exagerated in first past the post nations. I find it far more disturbing that almost 70% of your nation was voting against the tories in the 80's and they were winning 60% of the seats. Living in a nation where almost 75% of the people have practically no say in government just doesn't seem appealing. Especially whenever, like in your nation, if a party wins a majority of parliamentary seats their party leader is pretty much dictator for a while.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I don't quite get the 'call an election' stuff. Don't you guys have regularly scheduled events like we do?

They have to call an election every 5 years. But the majority party can usually call one earlier, like whenever they're high in the polls...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

At least you have one, there are other places where they seem to not have any fixed constitution. Term limitations could be changed at will in such a system. I have no trust for a government that isn't limited in such a fashion.

The only thing that keeps Labour from just abolishing limits on their terms is popular outrage. Britian has no constitution.

Then again, at any moment the American government could just ignore our constitution. The only thing keeping that from happening is, again, popular outrage.

 

[Damocles]

The only thing that keeps Labour from just abolishing limits on their terms is popular outrage. Britian has no constitution.

Then again, at any moment the American government could just ignore our constitution. The only thing keeping that from happening is, again, popular outrage.

Pretty much. And expectation. They seem to regularly ignore the constitution at will, just so long as it is small people seem to be willing to ignore it as well.

 

[charver]

The weakness of coalition governments are usually vastly exagerated in first past the post nations. I find it far more disturbing that almost 70% of your nation was voting against the tories in the 80's and they were winning 60% of the seats. Living in a nation where almost 75% of the people have practically no say in government just doesn't seem appealing. Especially whenever, like in your nation, if a party wins a majority of parliamentary seats their party leader is pretty much dictator for a while.

Oh i quite understand your concerns, Water. The constituency i live in has been Conservative since it was constituted in 1950. It always will be Conservative. My vote means absolutely nothing.

However, as we are used to having "strong governments" the press, especially, tends to seize on any party divisions and that does have a consequent knock-on effect in opinion polls. Any coalition government would be riven with division and back-biting within hours and another election would be on the cards within months.

 

[Thorn]

So there is a regularly scheduled event, if they don't call one within 5 years you have to have another one then?

Canada's roughly the same.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Oh i quite understand your concerns, Water. The constituency i live in has been Conservative since it was constituted in 1950. It always will be Conservative. My vote means absolutely nothing.

However, as we are used to having "strong governments" the press, especially, tends to seize on any party divisions and that does have a consequent knock-on effect in opinion polls. Any coalition government would be riven with division and back-biting within hours and another election would be on the cards within months.

Seems strange to Americans. Our entire system of government was built to make government as weak as possible. It would, however, be interesting to be able to make sweeping changes to the way society works without having to wait 100 years. It would leave more room for experimentation, to weed out what does and doesn't work. It would also be bad, however, to NOT vote for someone by majority and have them rule the nation at a whim, like in the 80's.

All in all, I'd rather have a coalition of different parties in a strong parliament, instead of two weak parliaments made up of a majority of one party and a guy who lords over them (seems based on a system of government you guys once tried, huh?) But, most of America seems to disagree with me.

 

[Diuretic]

The only thing that keeps Labour from just abolishing limits on their terms is popular outrage. Britian has no constitution.

Then again, at any moment the American government could just ignore our constitution. The only thing keeping that from happening is, again, popular outrage.

Britain most assuredly does have a constitution. True it's not in a single document such as the US Constitution but it exists and it underpins government.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Britain most assuredly does have a constitution. True it's not in a single document such as the US Constitution but it exists and it underpins government.

It's referred to as a constitution by some, but it certainly can't be compared to any of the organized, embedded constitutions throughout the world. Only the UK and Israel have what basically amounts to no constitution.

Labour changing the dates on limits would be easier than it would be in the US. All they'd have to do is pass a law. If the public accepted this then it would be the truth. In the US, passing such a law would go against our set in stone institutions. It's much more difficult to get enough people to go along with that.