19 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwWhat's so awful about having an election? Each time there's an election the people get more say and there's a more accurate representation of the public.
Well, that's what the Lib Dems want - I wasn't sure how common it was elsewhere. I could imagine it making sense that if a coalition collapses a new one can form without necessarily calling an election - but that won't always be possible.
In any case it's not unheard of for FPTP to produce this situation as well. It's not as if FPTP is immune from coalitions breaking up and forming.
At least with PR coalitions (and breaking of them) happen in a democratic and representative way.
I think what the Lib Dems want is for us to start down the road of becoming a more democratic society , what we end up with might be something different. But anything's better than what we have now.
In the end it's up to our government to present an informed and open referendum to the people so that we decide how we want to vote. What's disgusting is that the main partys have to be bartered with and harrassed to even consider a referendum. What are they so afraid of do you think?
They strongly suspect that FPTP would lose in a referendum and they would have to go to a system where they would lose seats. But they won't open the door to it. It's a stale and revolting cartel that shuts out the will of people from being heard and presumes that the people don't know what 's good for them. They are just holding on to power in some kind of twisted , old boys agreement.
21 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterNothings wrong with it. I was just wondering about the mechanics.
What's so awful about having an election? Each time there's an election the people get more say and there's a more accurate representation of the public.
The Lib Dems want fixed term parliaments. The argument for this is that it prevents the sitting government manipulating the date of an election - e.g. by causing a short-term boom then calling it, or calling an election because they know things are about to get worse. A reasonable position to have.
They particularly want them now, I suspect, because they know the Conservatives would otherwise call an election the moment they thought they'd win a majority. Which would allow the Conservatives to make concessions now, knowing they might not have to stick to them.
My question is, what happens when a government collapsed mid-term and another can't be formed?
The coalition's current approach appears to be "change the rules so that more than a 50% majority is needed to pass a vote of no confidence". Which seems astonishingly dodgy to me.