Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
New Prime Minister
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Prestwick" data-source="post: 125191"><p>Now, this is an interesting conundrum which has resulted from years of Tony Blair and his 'Presidential' style of government.</p><p></p><p>Remember that this is an elected <em>Parliament</em> from which a government has been chosen from and not an elected <em>Government</em> with a separate Parliament to bring it to account. When a Parliament is elected, it is elected for a maximum of five years or when the monarch feels it acceptable to dissolve it. From this Parliament, the leader of the biggest faction is asked to form a government by the monarch.</p><p></p><p>As we are running by that way of doing things therefore, as we are still in the Parliament, as elected in 2005 which will be dissolved in 2010 at the latest, and as Labour is still the biggest party with an overall majority, therefore it is not actually breaking any rules. This is because the same party that had been elected is still there, it is just changing leader. You cannot dissolve Parliament because, in effect, nothing has changed. You cannot call new elections because the Prime Minister has changed when those elections are actually meant to elect a Parliament. </p><p></p><p>Thus, the problem is that in order to satisfy the demand for new elections to pick a new executive, there must be a separation of the executive from the legislature with separate elections to elect a Primer Minister and his/her team. </p><p></p><p>In any case, this would require serious new legislation to change the constitution as well as serious changes to the political landscape of the UK.</p><p></p><p>New elections would be a waste of time anyway, they would not tell us anything new, turnout would probably be low and Brown would still scrape through with a small majority. Far better to wait for Brown to trip up in the last two years of this Parliament than rush things with new fangled automatically triggered elections.</p><p></p><p>Edit: Low vote percentages have always been an interesting no-win situation. If they result via a first past the post ballot, then that means that the largest party in power was elected with a percentage of the vote far fewer than that of its rivals in opposition. However, with proportional representation, you then have the prospect of many different parties who could represent vastly different points of view clinging together in a coalition, thus bringing the argument that why should a party (or indeed part<em>ies</em>) who had scored a paltry 5-10% of the vote have a part in government. Israel is a perfect example, with moderate left wing Labour Ministers representing mainstream public opinion finding their ideas being vetoed by the solitary minister representing the "Kill all ragheads" ultra-supa-doopa-zionist party representing roughly 1% of the country.</p><p></p><p>In short, the only government that could truly claim to "represent the people" is one that is totalitarian in nature.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Prestwick, post: 125191"] Now, this is an interesting conundrum which has resulted from years of Tony Blair and his 'Presidential' style of government. Remember that this is an elected [i]Parliament[/i] from which a government has been chosen from and not an elected [i]Government[/i] with a separate Parliament to bring it to account. When a Parliament is elected, it is elected for a maximum of five years or when the monarch feels it acceptable to dissolve it. From this Parliament, the leader of the biggest faction is asked to form a government by the monarch. As we are running by that way of doing things therefore, as we are still in the Parliament, as elected in 2005 which will be dissolved in 2010 at the latest, and as Labour is still the biggest party with an overall majority, therefore it is not actually breaking any rules. This is because the same party that had been elected is still there, it is just changing leader. You cannot dissolve Parliament because, in effect, nothing has changed. You cannot call new elections because the Prime Minister has changed when those elections are actually meant to elect a Parliament. Thus, the problem is that in order to satisfy the demand for new elections to pick a new executive, there must be a separation of the executive from the legislature with separate elections to elect a Primer Minister and his/her team. In any case, this would require serious new legislation to change the constitution as well as serious changes to the political landscape of the UK. New elections would be a waste of time anyway, they would not tell us anything new, turnout would probably be low and Brown would still scrape through with a small majority. Far better to wait for Brown to trip up in the last two years of this Parliament than rush things with new fangled automatically triggered elections. Edit: Low vote percentages have always been an interesting no-win situation. If they result via a first past the post ballot, then that means that the largest party in power was elected with a percentage of the vote far fewer than that of its rivals in opposition. However, with proportional representation, you then have the prospect of many different parties who could represent vastly different points of view clinging together in a coalition, thus bringing the argument that why should a party (or indeed part[i]ies[/i]) who had scored a paltry 5-10% of the vote have a part in government. Israel is a perfect example, with moderate left wing Labour Ministers representing mainstream public opinion finding their ideas being vetoed by the solitary minister representing the "Kill all ragheads" ultra-supa-doopa-zionist party representing roughly 1% of the country. In short, the only government that could truly claim to "represent the people" is one that is totalitarian in nature. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
New Prime Minister
Top