Shameless political posting

[germdoc]

I know there's a rule re' talking politics, but this is for Ray Girling:

Congrats on your most interesting election in the UK and a new government!

In my opinion it's always good to get a fresh start every now and then. However, I am concerned that both Cameron and Clegg look like they just graduated from public school. On the plus side they both have very attractive wives...

[Kristofor]

I don't know... I can't respect any election that doesn't generate a clear winner by the following morning! <cough> US Prez in 2000 (Florida), <cough> MN Senator 2008-2009.

[RayintheUK]

Congrats on your most interesting election in the UK and a new government!

Well, thanks for that - I was convinced that the World must be laughing at us! The problem with a three-party system (OK, there are a few other minority parties involved as well) is that a vote for one diminishes support from either or both of the two main contestants. This is exactly what's happened here, as Cameron didn't get an outright majority and if Clegg had done a deal with Brown, together they would have had exactly the same number of seats as Cameron. This would have meant no overall majority, plus power in voting (and, therefore, veto-ing too) would have rested with either the Scottish Nationals or Plaid Cymru. We don't mind risk, but that's a risk too far!

It was, therefore, fairly obvious that Clegg was going to team up with the Conservatives, but he opened talks with Brown to gain maximum leverage for the deal. With Cameron and Clegg, plus the Chancellor (George Osborne), it's a very youthful top three. I'm pleased to see William Hague as Foreign Secretary and Kenneth Clark as Justice Minister (I'd have preferred Clark as Prime Minister, TBH), but there are bound to be a few controversial postings, such as Theresa May as Home secretary. At least it's much more hopeful than the mess we were in, I think.

Ray

[billwmeyer]

Ray,
I was talking to my wife last night about your election. As I understand it, the Conservatives teamed with the Democratic Liberals to form a government, with the DL party the minority partner. Doesn't this in effect give more power to the minority group than the majority group would have, needing their vote for passage on most things?

I hope this isn't deemed too political in nature, I am just trying to understand your form of government. Over here the Conservatives joining or even agreeing to the Democratic Liberals is mind boggling!

Bill

[RayintheUK]

The final result was Conservatives 306, Labour 258, Liberal Democrats 57, others 28. The number of seats required to govern is 326. As you can see, if the Liberal Democrats had teamed up with Labour, they would have 315 seats, not enough for an overall majority unless some of the "others" voted with them. By teaming up with the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats made the total of the coalition 363 seats, hence they became the new government. Actually, Cameron was the one asked to form the new government and is Prime Minister, but he's there because of Clegg's support and they both know that.

In order to get such support, compromises were required. The new cabinet has 18 Conservatives and 5 Liberal Democrats. Compare that to the proportion of seats won (306 to 57) and you see that an 18% proportion of seats became a 27% slice of the cabinet. I guess that although there will be quite a bit of in-fighting, they'll want to keep this out of the public view. Overall, the deal seems to have put Cameron's arm right up his back.

Ray

[germdoc]

It will be interesting to see how they square the circle on a number of issues where they are diametrically opposite.

BTW, if I understand correctly, GB was mainly under coalition governments for the first half of the late century. Even Churchill's war government was a coalition. So the more recent single-party governments are not the rule.

[jackellis]

This thread is about how a political system works rather than a about political ideology, so it's akin to a civics lesson and (hopefully) won't start heated arguments. I hope the mods let it continue.

I understand a little more clearly why the news analyses I've read suggest this government probably won't last long and will likely lead to another election soon. One thing to bear in mind about the relative youth of Clegg and Cameron is that Parliament can and should keep them from doing anything rash. Another is that "experience" can often be another word for maintaining the status-quo.

[TB Roye]

Ray

LOML has a Internet Pen Pal in the UK. She liked the Labour Party although she did not care for Brown. We love to watch Prime Ministers Question on Sunday night on CSPAN. My Son and his wife were both in USAF and stationed at RAF Chicksands for 3 years so we made a few visits to the UK. My 4Th Grade teacher was a War Bride from England and gave us good lesson on the Coronation of the Queen. Your Politics seem to be much more civil than ours. LOML hasn't' told Gill that she is of a different political view. She just avoids any political discussions as she doesn't want to mess up the relationship. I can remember a number of times Churchill was ousted as Prime Minster and the other votes of no conficence causing elections to be held.
Tom

[crokett]

There are no problems with this thread, so long as it stays a civics lesson.

[Black wallnut]

This thread is about how a political system works rather than a about political ideology, so it's akin to a civics lesson and (hopefully) won't start heated arguments. I hope the mods let it continue.

snip.

Exactly! As long as it is a discussion of the system rather than those in it or their idealogies then it is a simple civics discussion. Any heated arguments will be purged promptly.

[jackellis]

Tom, I lived in London for 18 months and read the newspapers often (when I didn't see headlines in the train stations). Although the political discourse among politicians here has become less civil, it's still not as rancorous as it can be in the UK. For one thing, most (though not all) of the newspaper headlines there read like something from the New York Post. For another, parliamentary debates can include lots of rude comments, talking over the speaker, sleeping, snoring. At least there are no fistfights - you find those in Taiwan and (I think) Korea.

I'm not suggesting the American version of democracy has anything on the UK or vice versa. Democracy is pretty messy business everywhere. It's very imperfect. But we do get to speak our minds and vote freely. Somehow we manage to muddle along surprisingly well.

20 years ago my wife and I spent an hour sitting in the gallery of the state parliament in Victoria, Australia. We walked out absolutely stunned over what we heard and saw. It was like these men (I think they were all men, anyway) had never learned any manners at home. I have not sat in a session of parliament in London, but I think it is very similar.

[germdoc]

I wish we had Prime Minister's Question Hour. That would keep politicians on their toes.