General Chat

I havent read the whole thread through, but I have to say that it will probably make little difference which party is in power as they will all continue with the debt-money system of finance. It will just be a matter of juggling, robbing Peter to pay Paul. If people want more money for health it will have to come from either taxes, or less money for education or whatever. Until people wake up to the fact that money is currently produced each time the banks (privately owned) make a loan, then the country will continue to suffer. Look at the number of countries which are currently in debt. To whom are they in debt?

Huia.

Thanks Muffy, it's buffering as I type :-))

Sue x

I think I may do now TW lol xx

Brilliant, OH hadn't seen it so I'll show it to him when he comes out of the shower.

I like Campbell's tweet after..."Really worried about Adam Boulton . . . Wonder if he might need some of my pills."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbAhrt9M5Fk

Boulton V Campbell for those that missed it earlier.

xx

One other bit of experience as far as whether no bill could get passed in a hung parlt, etc. etc.

Does the country want another election very soon? Most electorates don't really want election after election. The Conservatives pulled it here, an election 2 years after the previous one, arrogantly thinking they could get a majority. They didn't. And right now, *nobody* wants an election. They're broke, an election will just peeve the voters who think the lot of them should stop misbehaving and govern the country, none of them can truly believe that just one more election will give them a majority. Does Labour think it would do better the second time around?? Does Nick Clegg? I doubt it. ;)

The voters tend to punish whoever they see as having brought on another election -- which would include your Conservatives if they provoked a non-confidence vote by being arrogant and refusing to play parliamentary ball, thinking they could win if they took another kick at it.

So life, over here, goes on, committees do their work, bills get debated and passed, the Conservatives try to sweep dirty scandals under the rug and do by spending power what they don't have to put through Parliament (like withdrawing funding for family planning from our international maternal health aid funding).

It isn't likely the end of the world as you know it, probably. ;)

Rose, you may quote me. ;)

The Conservatives don't have a majority (which = 50% + 1). They have a plurality - more seats than anybody else alone, fewer seats than everybody else combined.

It's what our Conservatives have here right now. The difference is we have *four* solid blocks of seats in the house, four parties. That makes a mess. Three where none have a majority can work very well. It has here, where, as I have explained clearly, the system is identical to yours. (And I do like to remember that this here, where we're talking, is the world wide web, not the UK.) That is not a matter of "politics", it's a matter of system of government.

I know of nothing in the UK or Cdn constitution that says anything about a majority of anything. This is pure constitutional convention: how things oughta be done and should be done. The person who wishes to form a government convinces the Queen (in Canada, the GG for the Queen) that s/he has the confidence of the house. It could be an independent MP, it could be the leader of a party with 99% of the seats. Still gotta go to the Queen/GG.

That there is the essence of the role of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy -- the one little crucial bit of power that the elected legislative branch does not wield. It can select a PM (and cabinet) by letting it be known that person has its confidence, and it can de-select the person by voting non-confidence. It is pure constitutional convention that a government that has been non-confidenced must go to the Queen/GG and resign. And if somebody else can convince the Queen/GG they have the confidence of the House, they are entitled to get a shot at governing.

Canada and Australia have had constitutional crises when minority governments failed and the Gov Gen wielded that power in what was seen as an illegitimate way. In Canada, it was the King Byng affair in 1925. In Australia it was The Dismissal in 1975.

But it is all according to convention, not rules in stone. They're good rules, but like all rules, it's the exceptions that test 'em. ;)

Anyhow, I think some people likely did vote, and campaign, for a hung parliament. It's to the advantage of the "third party" -- our NDP, your Lib Dems -- because they get the real power then. Here, it is a truism that the only way to keep a Liberal government honest is to make sure it depends on the NDP block to keep it in power. I vote NDP always, except twice in 35 years when I voted for one of the Big Two to make sure the other didn't win in my riding. I vote NDP where I am to elect an NDP MP (which we do), but I know that the more NDP MPs we elect, the better a chance there is of a minority government ("hung parliament"). And I prefer that by far to either of the big two having a majority.

I would agree with you, Muffy... I think they are already seeing pound signs and more power......

Love

Daff xxxx

Any one like to put money on how long that 'enquiry' could last? ( Not to mention how much it will cost us)

Dunno but I'd be prepared to bet that it'll be a hell of a lot less than the amount the Nationalist parties will be wanting for their part in the coalition !!!!xx

WW2 showed a 3 party pull together,after the war Winnie got a no confidence vote.

Cleggy will have to be goverened by his MPs in their vote,regarless if he wants or doesnt,,,,I think he can put a revote to them till they get a clear majority of sway to what ever party..

". Cameron is understood to have told senior Tories that he would not be offering a referendum on electoral reform under his government, which would deny the Lib Dems one of their most cherished prizes.

So far Cameron has only offered a cross-party inquiry into electoral reform."

Any one like to put money on how long that 'enquiry' could last? ( Not to mention how much it will cost us).

You can see that Jean from the latest news on further BA strike action!

Anyway, I am off for a sulk, thanks to everyone who took time to reply. Play nicely on the thread whilst I am gone..lol

Sue xx

Clegg is the one with all the power in his hands at the moment, and it is him and his party that are at the centre of negotiations, with him in the role of lead negotiator.

As a negotiator he has to talk with both sides before making any decision to put any outline plans to his party for a final vote, which then has to be in the best interests of the nation.

How the hell else is he supposed to play it?

Again, another media frenzy twisting things, much like saying the electorate voted for this.

Sue, I know.... a party that started off as terrorists holds no place in my life...

Sheila, I totally agree about the rainbow party... cept a rainbow has hope, but this prospective mishmash is pretty hope-less, I think!

Love

Daff xxx

During world war 2 we had a strong and well loved leader, and all pulled together. No-one was out to feather his own nest. The country was behind them most of the time and accepted the restrictions necessary, though there were some strikes initiated by socialists. No one now is willing to accept that we need to save and forego expensive pay rises etc. Those in well paid jobs just keep demanding more.

I don't think the Lib Dems are 'selling their soul'. Electoral reform is at the very heart of their mainfesto and always has been. Even if Clegg himself goes for Cameron's 'deal', he still has to put it in front of his party - if they reject it, he has to try again or go elsewhere. They have always been closer, politically, to Labour, and many Lib Dem supporters/members will be horrified at the thought of a deal with the Conservatives. I wouldn't like to be in his shoes!

I really don't like the idea of a Labour/Liberal/Rainbow option - the numbers aren't good and i don't think it would hold. It also won't do Clegg any favours in future, siding with the 'losers'.

Still, it's all very interesting!

1931,,,, National Gov didnt work here then after the Wall Street crash when each party had different wants to get the eccomony back on track,,,one wanted high rise in taxes,one wanted less public spending,the other wanted cuts in unemployemt benifit to get people back in jobs that didnt exsist....!!much as like now really..

I said that in an earlier post Rose,,Clegg bless him new kid on the block really and thrown in t he deep end :}}}

I think either way, it may well spell the death knell for the Lib Dems... if they go with the Conservatives in any appreciable manner, those disillusioned Labour voters who voted for them as a better alternative than Cons' will never give them house room again...and the same if they go with Labour....

the political reporter on the news said the feeling amongst Cons and Labour...was that Clegg's dealing with both sides was looking a bit 'grubby' .

Daff, I wouldn't want the patchwork which would give Labour/Lib Dems the overall majority.

Can you imagine what Plaid would demand in return for their support?

Sue xx

I thought they could still do that? (form a minority government... you are all typing too fast for me) The Tories? Or is that only if Lab can't find enough MP's to play with him? As I understand it, Tory/Lib is ok with just two parties, they have enough seats to play

Lab/Lib isn't... they still have to drag in other parties to their *side*... which would make a grotty patchwork quilt of a Government.... no-one agreeing on anything and everyone hogging the ball and not sharing...

Fingers crossed

We are up the creek without a paddle at the moment.

Just hope the canoe doesn't get smashed as well....

Love

Daff xxx