Brown resigns

[uncon]

I am a democrat and believe any move to alter the constitution to enable a minority government to remain in power when it's clear that it's universally rejected threatens democracy.

So you believe that a government that is voted out of power should not seek to remain in power?

You can see where I am going with this can't you darling?

[Expounder]

So you believe that a government that is voted out of power should not seek to remain in power?

You can see where I am going with this can't you darling?

Sorry uncon you've scrambled my brain with that one. You haven't been on the hard stuff have you?http://www.politic.co.uk/images/icons/happy.gif

[Don]

I am a democrat and believe any move to alter the constitution to enable a minority government to remain in power when it's clear that it's universally rejected threatens democracy.

Forgive my American naivete, but isn't one of the glaring 'benefits' to an 'unwritten constitution' that it can be changed to suit any old occasion that arises. To one from a country with a written constitution, that clearly lays out the rights and obligations of government and citizen, although admittedly trampled on by all at times; the term 'unwritten constitution' seems something of an oxymoron.

Pardon my taking this little 'side road' to the thread, but it just popped off the page and struck me squarely betwixt the eyes, so to speak.

[Expounder]

Forgive my American naivete, but isn't one of the glaring 'benefits' to an 'unwritten constitution' that it can be changed to suit any old occasion that arises. To one from a country with a written constitution, that clearly lays out the rights and obligations of government and citizen, although admittedly trampled on by all at times; the term 'unwritten constitution' seems something of an oxymoron.

Pardon my taking this little 'side road' to the thread, but it just popped off the page and struck me squarely betwixt the eyes, so to speak.

Hi Don, you are absolutely right, but what we are talking about in this case, is a proposal a British Prime Minister of a coalition government aiming to keep his minority government in office [in the event of the coalition breaking down] by changing the "unwritten constitution" and increasing the percentage of opposition votes needed to dissolve parliament from 50+% to 55%.

As the all the opposition parties together can only muster 53% it means a lame duck government wanted out by the majority of the electorate can stay in office and do their worst. I would call this moving the goal posts in anticipation of the coalition not lasting long, also at an attempt imposing a limited time dictatorship.

One of the stated main planks of Tory policy when in power was to reduce the number of MPs by 10% and and have the electoral commission rearrange electoral boundaries which they calculate will keep the opposition for the foreseeable future out of office. Hence the desperation to hold on until this legislation is passed and in place, which I think the partners in the coalition the Lib Dems would not accept. Even many of the Grandees in the Prime Minister's own party have condemned this as a blatant undemocratic move.

The English Constitution (1894)/The House of Commons - Wikisource

[Graveland]

"the need for a stable government over democracy". If that is what you believe then you can't consider yourself a democrat. You still haven't said whether this is what you meant in your first post on the subject.

Democracy is only an idea, people are needed to implement these ideas, you advocate the assumption that people can only function through democracy when clearly this is not true. It is akin to saying you can have religion but must conform to only one path of it. Democracy is but one tool to wield power, ultimately it is the person or persons who wield the power that shape its destiny, democracy or dictatorship. In ancient Greece the word tyrant applied to anyone good or bad who assumed power, now it carries only negative connotations. Seemingly to discourage such behaviour and shield the truth that no system is beyond the limitations of its human origin.

All of the above quoted were universally well intentioned popular uprisings fighting against oppressive regimes which eventually themselves turned into dictatorships . I would make an exception of Castro's Cuba as he was forced to maintain a command and closed economy because of the efforts by America to starve Cuba into submission by enforcing an international embargo. Had trade been allowed to flourish with Cuba I believe the outcome would have been different. The American right were in fear of the ideology which might have proven that there was a different road to dog eat dog capitalism

Universally well intentioned who turned into dictatorships, hmmm, naive again. Cuba was left bereft of enlightened leadership with Ernesto's 'disappearance' it was doomed from that day forth. The American's are afraid of everything, the left and the right, it just happened the right squawked louder about the dangers of communism. Or do you infer that the only political system that left wingers should engage in is communist in nature?

I am a democrat and believe any move to alter the constitution to enable a minority government to remain in power when it's clear that it's universally rejected threatens democracy.

How was the minority government universally rejected? It polled the largest share of the democratic vote, to reject them and all who voted for them would threaten democracy surely? To enter into coalition with such a polar opposite threatens only Labour not the electorate.

[Don]

Hi Don, you are absolutely right, but what we are talking about in this case, is a proposal a British Prime Minister of a coalition government aiming to keep his minority government in office [in the event of the coalition breaking down] by changing the "unwritten constitution" and increasing the percentage of opposition votes needed to dissolve parliament from 50+% to 55%.

As the all the opposition parties together can only muster 53% it means a lame duck government wanted out by the majority of the electorate can stay in office and do their worst. I would call this moving the goal posts in anticipation of the coalition not lasting long, also at an attempt imposing a limited time dictatorship.

One of the stated main planks of Tory policy when in power was to reduce the number of MPs by 10% and and have the electoral commission rearrange electoral boundaries which they calculate will keep the opposition for the foreseeable future out of office. Hence the desperation to hold on until this legislation is passed and in place, which I think the partners in the coalition the Lib Dems would not accept. Even many of the Grandees in the Prime Minister's own party have condemned this as a blatant undemocratic move.

The English Constitution (1894)/The House of Commons - Wikisource

So you agree that the 'benefit' of the unwritten constitution is that it can easily be changed to suit a situation, but then complain when a party seeks to take advantage of that very benefit? I have to ask, would you be crying foul if Labor were trying the same tactic?

BTW, if I read the number correctly at BBC NEWS | Election 2010 | Results | United Kingdom - National Results 'all' the opposition parties, if you include LibDem, add up to 63.9%, not 53%. Or is my math seriously off?

Thanks for the link and I will give it a through look as I'm very interested in cattle plague . Seriously, I will read it. I do note that initially it seeks to condemn the U.S. Electoral College, but demonstrates a lack of understanding of how it works. Outmoded it may be in this age of instant communications, but it does reflect the will of the people for a person they pick vs. the will of the Legislative Branch presuming to know what is best.

[Expounder]

So you agree that the 'benefit' of the unwritten constitution is that it can easily be changed to suit a situation, but then complain when a party seeks to take advantage of that very benefit? I have to ask, would you be crying foul if Labor were trying the same tactic?

BTW, if I read the number correctly at BBC NEWS | Election 2010 | Results | United Kingdom - National Results 'all' the opposition parties, if you include LibDem, add up to 63.9%, not 53%. Or is my math seriously off?

Thanks for the link and I will give it a through look as I'm very interested in cattle plague . Seriously, I will read it. I do note that initially it seeks to condemn the U.S. Electoral College, but demonstrates a lack of understanding of how it works. Outmoded it may be in this age of instant communications, but it does reflect the will of the people for a person they pick vs. the will of the Legislative Branch presuming to know what is best.

Hi Don, the links attached might go some way to explaining the present rather complicated percentage system in the commons. You will note it has been written by one of the Conservatives most respected members. If this doesn't explain it follow the other items in the link.

As the Labour party has never been posed with this problem I can't see the relevance of the question.

David Davis attacks plan for 55% majority to dissolve parliament | Politics | The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/b...eral-democrats

[Expounder]

Democracy is only an idea, people are needed to implement these ideas, you advocate the assumption that people can only function through democracy when clearly this is not true. It is akin to saying you can have religion but must conform to only one path of it. Democracy is but one tool to wield power, ultimately it is the person or persons who wield the power that shape its destiny, democracy or dictatorship. In ancient Greece the word tyrant applied to anyone good or bad who assumed power, now it carries only negative connotations. Seemingly to discourage such behaviour and shield the truth that no system is beyond the limitations of its human origin.

Sounds very profound, but not very helpful.

Universally well intentioned who turned into dictatorships, hmmm, naive again. Cuba was left bereft of enlightened leadership with Ernesto's 'disappearance' it was doomed from that day forth. The American's are afraid of everything, the left and the right, it just happened the right squawked louder about the dangers of communism. Or do you infer that the only political system that left wingers should engage in is communist in nature?

What other course did the Cuban people have? Force had to be used to remove those who inflicted injustices upon them.

To his credit Ernesto went of into the big wide world to spread the word among the oppressed and lead them to a better life.
He tried to do what Fidel done in Cuba. But, where Cuba is an Island and a relatively small land mass surrounded by water he managed with a small band, to recruit and organise a peasant army to kick out Batista the Mafia and the crooked bribe taking American politicians and the brothel owners. Ernesto's enthusiasm made him bite off more that he could chew.

]How was the minority government universally rejected? It polled the largest share of the democratic vote, to reject them and all who voted for them would threaten democracy surely? To enter into coalition with such a polar opposite threatens only Labour not the electorate.

As a party They obtained 36% of the popular vote no conclusive mandate for their policies.

There are different ways this can pan out, one scenario is that if the coalition holds long enough to do real damage it will be the Lib Dems who will suffer, as their brand will be so contaminated supporting the Tories as a junior partner, that their voting base will diminish. It's possible that they may never be a part of mainstream as in the past.


Coalition government: Taking the plunge | Politics | guardian.co.uk

[Graveland]

So then no party obtained a conclusive mandate for their policies and such a coalition as we have now is the logical way forward, your just peeved off your party couldn't muster enough dignity to compromise. Perhaps if they hadn't been courting (and blatantly ignoring) the fears of the senior civil servants and LISTENING to what people outside their little power bubble were saying they might still be in power. How ironic that they offer voting reform to the liberals and yet in the very scenario of Google Page Ranking voting they are unable to deal with their closest political allay. What does that tell you??
Explain to me how 18 years of Tory government was worse than the 13 years of Labour's. Because as far as I can tell Labour are incapable of admitting mistakes and subsequent failures, the Tories have at least showed they will look at issues where maybe their thinking was wrong, or that the Liberals have a better policy and therefore implement that. It is dangerous for any party to assume they are right all the time, Labour tried 13 years of insatiable spin to project this image, the rubble that is being excavated is enormous...

[Expounder]

So then no party obtained a conclusive mandate for their policies and such a coalition as we have now is the logical way forward, your just peeved off your party couldn't muster enough dignity to compromise. Perhaps if they hadn't been courting (and blatantly ignoring) the fears of the senior civil servants and LISTENING to what people outside their little power bubble were saying they might still be in power.

The Lib Dems were playing games, the Con/Lib coalition was sewn up well before the pathetic attempt by the Lib Dems to con the public that they tried to woo Labour.

All the juicy ministerial seats for the LD were in the bag along with the the grace and favour accommodation and ministerial cars.They just couldn't wait to get back to Mill-bank to sign the deal.

How ironic that they offer voting reform to the liberals and yet in the very scenario of Google Page Ranking voting they are unable to deal with their closest political allay. What does that tell you?

Note my answer above to your question.

Explain to me how 18 years of Tory government was worse than the 13 years of Labour's. Because as far as I can tell Labour are incapable of admitting mistakes and subsequent failures, the Tories have at least showed they will look at issues where maybe their thinking was wrong, or that the Liberals have a better policy and therefore implement that. It is dangerous for any party to assume they are right all the time, Labour tried 13 years of insatiable spin to project this image, the rubble that is being excavated is enormous...

If you lived as an adult through the Thatcher period you wouldn't need to ask this question. The uncollectable Poll Tax, the brutal wholesale dismantling of industry, [with no plan or care for people thrown on the scrap heap]. the mining towns and villages forced on to the dole and left to rot, the riots, the refusal to let councils to build more properties for new tenants with the proceeds of the income from houses sold at a discount, in order to force tenants into the clutches of the unscrupulous private landlords

The NHS brought to it's knees and on life support, 18 months wait for a hospital operation. Patients lined up in corridors waiting for admission because of wholesale ward closures dressed up as efficiency savings.

If a country was busted, it couldn't have been any more busted than after the Thatchers years. Whatever mistakes Labour may have made during it's tenure, which every government does make, Britain is a much better place than when the Tories left it in 1997.

In spite of his fine words look forward to some of the same under Cameron and his glove puppet Clegg and co, who will cling like S*** to a blanket for their apostate moment in the sun which is never likely to come again.

Thatcher's legacy: From the poll tax to privatisation - how the Iron Lady's policies altered Britain - mirror.co.uk

THE SIMMERING CITIES: URBAN UNREST DURING THE THATCHER YEARS -- Benyon and Solomos 41 (3): 402 -- Parliamentary Affairs