As others have mentioned coalition systems work well in Scandanavia and Germany. The electorate didn’t vote against coalition government, the Lib Dem electorate abandoned them by either switching to Labour or not voting because they completely abandoned their promises to gain a share of power. That isn’t a vote against coalition government it’s a vote against a party who completely u-turns on it’s election pledges. The Torries didn’t lose votes from being in coalition, it actually strengthened their numbers.
I never said coalitions don’t work in general, I looked at the UK specifically.
The results weren’t a definitive conclusion on coalition governments in the UK. I said the result were a indication of what the electorate wanted and that was a single party government.
The result was a measure of that particular Government’s performance where it was deemed by the electorate the the Lib dems ultimately failed to deliver on key aspects on their manifesto and lost their ability to retain power. Part of the reason why they weren’t able to deliver on certain points is because of their limited role in the government and they were forced to comprise
They weren’t actually, they could of veto-ed any Tory plan they wanted so long as they had Labour support. So any austerity measure they wanted they could of veto-ed. They had a far stronger position than Clegg utilised. Clegg sold pretty much all policies down the river for the failed AV referendum, which should of simply been a PR referendum anyway but the Tories didn’t agree to that. Cameron an co played Clegg like a fiddle. Clegg really should of made a coalition with Labour because they were closer in policy but maybe Labour probably weren’t offering an AV referendum. PR/AV coming in would of made Lib Dems far far more powerful as a party. It failed and Clegg failed. But Clegg should of just gone back on any promises he made to Cameron anyway. Cameron was likely threatening to goto an election to oust Clegg but Clegg could have called his bluff.
The idea of members of the government working together with the opposition to coerce the government seems absolutely crazy to me.
I think a government, regardless of it’s make up should strive for unity and a broad consensus. The idea of the Lib dems going to Labour, who doesn’t have any mandate to influence legislature, for support seem very undemocratic, it’s simple not a reflection of what the electorate wanted.
The notion of coalition government in the UK just gives rise for lots of pointless unproductive partisan politics.
On a side note I’ve really enjoyed reading the responses I’ve provoked. Very insightful
This is right, but the sort of people who have clawed their way to the top in politics, are generally different type of person than the rest of the population, so they are unlikely to listen to anyone else as they are only interested in the sound of their own voice.
This was the problem with Thatcher.
She wasn’t going to listen to anyone and it proved her undoing but she was supported by the right wing of her party and they weren’t interested in unity, they were only interested in lining their own pockets.
This is what Trump has done.
He has surrounded himself with right wing lunatics who he knows will back him, and there will be no listening to people with opposing views, no matter how much he says.
The man is a proven liar, why would anyone trust him?
Why it would actually be democracy in action, everyone’s vote counting instead of the 1/3. There’s no reason why elected members shouldn’t side with their elected position on an issue. If the majority side on elected positions then democracy is seen to be done. The Lib Dems could have sided on issues with The Torries that they believed in and sided with Labour on other issues. It would have made parliment incluses of all MPs opinion rather than a party leader using a whip to get his/her agenda across.
Oh and ‘working together with the opposition’ ummm wait a minute aren’t they meant to be the opposition anyway?
I’d also be happy and back any Labour and Torrie rebels to defeat any moves at removing us from the single market. If they’ve ran on being pro-EU they rightfully should vote in that manner.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Can anyone simply explain the 60 votes to confirm a supreme court justice and how they can get around that?
They can’t that’s why Trump chose a conservative who they think they can get some Dems to vote for. There were much more whacko conservative choices he passed on. Dems might dig their heels in now though because them pubs cock blocked Obama’s choice at every turn.
Admittedly I’m getting this ‘knowledge’ from The West Wing but I thought Senate confirmations were simple majorities?
I’ve read they can get around that, and use the majorty they currently have, but I don’t know the ins and outs of it.
My bad, I shouldn’t have used the term “vote for”. Basically the Democrats can filibuster the vote and debate endlessly on the subject. At that point to bypass the filibuster they’ll need 60 votes. Because Trump nominated a less whacky conservative the idea is that enough dems might just lay down and let it happen. The idea that they might not even filibuster is floating around as well. In that case a simple majority vote would get it done.
Honestly, after a tweet like this Trump really needs better consultants or to be taken off twitter completely for the time being. That’s just asking for problems and worrying coming from the fucking president.
Have you been living under a rock for the past months? He’s been calling reporters and journalists “scum”, “liars” “dishonest” and so on for months. He’s called the acting AG a “betrayer” for putting a stop on his EO and now he’s doing it again. This is part of his modus operandi, and I’m sure his supporters have been whipped up into a frenzy so much, they actually love this.
He is killing civilized discourse, and at an extraordinary speed.
Of course this is completely destroying democracy in the US, which does not work without a press and an independent judiciary, and this is precisely the point. Add to that the flat out lies he, his press secretary and Mrs Conway dish out (Bowling Green massacre?), and in just a few weeks he has made the press an absolute enemy for his supporters and stripped them of all their credibility.
So when he fills his cabinet with Goldman Sachs and Exxon and repeals Dodd-Frank by openly admitting he does it for his business friends, when he’s not distancing himself from his businesses (as he’s promised to do in a big show of a press conference), when he’s appointing a known torturer as dputy chief of the CIA, it is either hardly reported at all, or will be dismissed as fake news by his supporters.
This is shock and awe in full effect and his twitter antics are a major part of it.
I haven’t been living under a rock, thank you very much. I just think that this is a step above his usual bullshit he puts out on twitter, which is why I’m posting it.
Justice has saved him 6 times, tbf. He should just thanks it.
Ok. I don’t think it is a step up at all, “betrayal” is much stronger, especially considering he’s fired the person who “betrayed” him. It is also most certainly not the most shocking thing he’s done.
Opinions will differ, though.
Surely this can’t go on for another 4 years
This is equally scary and funny at the same time.
Question is who’s the biggest joke, he himself or the ones who actually voted for making this farce a reality. Still they step up in social medias making excuses and ‘explaining’ what this clown really meant. I wonder how long they can persist. Knowing the longlivety of certain AKB’s though I guess the skies the limit.
I really enjoyed his press conference the other day.
I took pleasure in a leader/politician finally talking to the press like that and not mincing their words.
Globally the overall quality of the media has been in serious decline turning into nothing more than partisan political squabbling trying to further their own agendas or sensationalist clickbait, so to see someone go on the attack like this is really entertaining.