Cameron steps down as leader of the LibDems - UK politics

[Diuretic]

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.

There are the all in one type constitutions such as the US, which have been thought out and reduced to writing. There are other consolidated constitutions such as in Britain. In form they're different but they both have force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Fixed terms for government are a good thing. Here in Australia at the federal level the situation is the same as it is in Britain. Oppositions don't like it, governments do. We probably won't get fixed terms as any party, when it's in government, sees its own wellbeing in the PM having the ability to call an election virtually at will (but the law does specify limits, just not fixed ones unfortunately).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There is one country in the world with an "unorganized" contitution, that is Britian. It's just as effective as not having a constitution. It's vague as to whats even in the "constitution", and it isn't embedded at all.


Flexible terms would be a good thing if there weren't the obvious flaw that the majority party will call elections to suit its own needs. In most parliamentary nations, however, flexible elections are a necessity, as without them if a coalition fell apart the government would be useless for several years.

 

[Diuretic]

There is one country in the world with an "unorganized" contitution, that is Britian. It's just as effective as not having a constitution. It's vague as to whats even in the "constitution", and it isn't embedded at all.

I feel I have to disagree because that's simply not the case, the allegation that it's "just as effective as not having a constitution" is wrong. There's a whole corpus of constitutional law in Britain and it has great effect. Since government works quite effectively in Britain it makes the case that their constitutional law has strength and validity.

Flexible terms would be a good thing if there weren't the obvious flaw that the majority party will call elections to suit its own needs. In most parliamentary nations, however, flexible elections are a necessity, as without them if a coalition fell apart the government would be useless for several years.

It's a huge drawback, that the government (usually the PM) can call the election to suit themselves. But flexible terms aren't required in parliamentary systems, governments just don't like to give up their advantage.

If a coalition falls apart in Britain or here in Australia then essentially the largest party in that coalition will continue to govern as long as it has the confidence of the parliament. The moment it loses the confidence of the parliament then parliament is prorogued and elections called.