Latest post of the previous page:
Must admit, not seen those figures, have you got a link.Also, when you said 'significant' I'd expected way above 5-10%
Latest post of the previous page:
Must admit, not seen those figures, have you got a link.No, I saw it quoted on Newsnight, I think, but it may be out there on the internet somewhere...Altfish wrote:Must admit, not seen those figures, have you got a link.
Fair enough. Maybe 'surprising' might have been better. I do wonder, though, if some voters (including/especially Labour ones?) might switch to SNP in the hope of bagging a better deal somehow, even though they don't want a separate Scotland. It has some plausibility, I think.Also, when you said 'significant' I'd expected way above 5-10%
One possible problem (and it is happening now to an extent in the coalition) is that you can end up with 12-months to go and you have a 'dead parliament'stevenw888 wrote: Now, under the new system, everyone knows when the election will be. The Tories have no specific advantage, and neither do Labour. Non-fixed term parliaments were another way that politicians could undermine the democratic process. The US has had fixed term parliaments for about 200 years and I never heard anyone moan about it.
Take that to its logical conclusion and we don't need government...discuss?!stevenw888 wrote:True, but is that a bad thing? I personally think it's good to go 12 months without any swingeing legislation. Think of Belgium - they managed for 18 months without an effective parliament, or new laws, and no-one died!
Hmmmm... The US do seem prone to "lame duck" presidencies, as may happen to Obama's last 2 years in office.stevenw888 wrote: The US has had fixed term parliaments for about 200 years and I never heard anyone moan about it.
So how many really strong national leaders (whether you take the leader as the PM or the cabinet as a whole) have we had recently? Thatcher seemed strong but just look what she achieved for the country in historical terms (so far). Are we stronger because of her? Have heard no one argue that so far.Nick wrote:Hmmmm... The US do seem prone to "lame duck" presidencies, as may happen to Obama's last 2 years in office.stevenw888 wrote: The US has had fixed term parliaments for about 200 years and I never heard anyone moan about it.
OK Nick, so maybe you are the first! Is this "lame duck" thing, essentially just a gag, really a good reason for criticising what must surely be a rational aspect of government? I think that as so often, it is just history which makes us Brits want to value things like the ruling lot being able to manipulate the dates of elections in order to stay in power. Another aspect to this debate is that in fact the UK parliaments did have a terminal date of five (formerly seven) years before the new law was passed, so in fact any ruling party would eventually become a lame duck - but they had the unfair advantage over the opposition of choosing when to dissolve parliamentNick wrote:Hmmmm... The US do seem prone to "lame duck" presidencies, as may happen to Obama's last 2 years in office.stevenw888 wrote: The US has had fixed term parliaments for about 200 years and I never heard anyone moan about it.
I can see what you are trying to do, but can you honestly see any time when there would not be a petition against the Government?Fia wrote:How about fixed terms but with the people being able to demand an election through the govt petition site? It would need a far shorter petition span than the usual year and have a well decent percentage of the populace, but it might be the basis of a good compromise?
I doubt it...animist wrote:OK Nick, so maybe you are the first!Nick wrote:Hmmmm... The US do seem prone to "lame duck" presidencies, as may happen to Obama's last 2 years in office.stevenw888 wrote: The US has had fixed term parliaments for about 200 years and I never heard anyone moan about it.
Not sure quite what you mean. Are you saying there can be no such thing as a "lame duck" government?Is this "lame duck" thing, essentially just a gag, really a good reason for criticising what must surely be a rational aspect of government?
Not really. So long as they could get there bills passed through the Commons, they would not be a lame duck, would they? Perviously, the threshold for getting rid of lame duck governments was lower- just a straight simple majority vote of no confidence. Now, under the new law it is much higher.I think that as so often, it is just history which makes us Brits want to value things like the ruling lot being able to manipulate the dates of elections in order to stay in power. Another aspect to this debate is that in fact the UK parliaments did have a terminal date of five (formerly seven) years before the new law was passed, so in fact any ruling party would eventually become a lame duck -
Possibly, but that is a separate matter.but they had the unfair advantage over the opposition of choosing when to dissolve parliament
It's about numbers in a democracy, of course, but what would that situation tell you about the Government?Nick wrote:I can see what you are trying to do, but can you honestly see any time when there would not be a petition against the Government?Fia wrote:How about fixed terms but with the people being able to demand an election through the govt petition site? It would need a far shorter petition span than the usual year and have a well decent percentage of the populace, but it might be the basis of a good compromise?
I think it would say rather more about the petitioners!Alan H wrote:It's about numbers in a democracy, of course, but what would that situation tell you about the Government?Nick wrote:I can see what you are trying to do, but can you honestly see any time when there would not be a petition against the Government?
Nick wrote:I think it would say rather more about the petitioners!Alan H wrote:It's about numbers in a democracy, of course, but what would that situation tell you about the Government?Nick wrote:I can see what you are trying to do, but can you honestly see any time when there would not be a petition against the Government?
not really. "Gag" was the wrong word probably, but the point is that all governments are going to become lamer as the terminal date for parliaments/presidencies approaches, so I don't see the "lame duck" aspect as relevant to this issueNick wrote:Not sure quite what you mean. Are you saying there can be no such thing as a "lame duck" government?Is this "lame duck" thing, essentially just a gag, really a good reason for criticising what must surely be a rational aspect of government?
I am confused by your arguments: yes, obviously if a government can get its legislation passed then it is not a lame duck, but that ability diminishes towards the end of the parliament/presidency whatever the constitutional arrangements are. How easy it is to get rid of unpopular governments is nothing to do with whether they are lame ducks!Nick wrote:Not really. So long as they could get there bills passed through the Commons, they would not be a lame duck, would they? Perviously, the threshold for getting rid of lame duck governments was lower- just a straight simple majority vote of no confidence. Now, under the new law it is much higher.I think that as so often, it is just history which makes us Brits want to value things like the ruling lot being able to manipulate the dates of elections in order to stay in power. Another aspect to this debate is that in fact the UK parliaments did have a terminal date of five (formerly seven) years before the new law was passed, so in fact any ruling party would eventually become a lame duck -
no, it is not a separate matter, it is one of the main reasons for criticising the previous arrangement whereby a government might hope to use favourable opinion poll ratings to perpetuate its hold on the electorate - Steven provided some good examples of this, eg the Falklands Factor in 1983 and the "Never Had It So Good" election of 1959Nick wrote:Possibly, but that is a separate matter.but they had the unfair advantage over the opposition of choosing when to dissolve parliament
But for many, coalitions have been fatally tarnished by the present one. The LibDems may well have prevented a few Tory policies getting through, but they failed to change the voting system and have been the enablers of the dismantling of the state and the sell-off of the Royal Mail and the NHS, continuing what Thatcher started.coffee wrote:I welcome that elections are no longer about two main political parties, I can get used to coalition, that is when real competition for policy ideas start and voters start to pick and choose what they like, and that is how it should be.
Almost certainly the best option, but the Tories didn't want it and, as has been shown, if they have any power, it will never be an option.The better option than that that I heard of is proportional representation and I hope that will come soon or latter.
I will keep that in mind for the coming election. ThanksAlmost certainly the best option, but the Tories didn't want it and, as has been shown, if they have any power, it will never be an option.
ISTM that that's what the LibDems wanted from their term of power sharing with the Tories. The Tories are better at controlling, so the question that was asked and the debate that was framed meant that the LibDems weren't ever going to get their way - it would have been a disaster for the Tories, therefore it could never be - and was never - allowed to happen. All the LibDems have therefore been able to do in 'power' was kowtow to their Lords and Masters and bide their time, hoping the backlash wouldn't be too bad. I think they'll be in for a surprise because just about everything that this Government has done is the antithesis of LibDem ideas and principles.coffee wrote:I will keep that in mind for the coming election. ThanksAlmost certainly the best option, but the Tories didn't want it and, as has been shown, if they have any power, it will never be an option.