Home Search Calendar Help Login Register
Did you miss your activation email?
MurraysWorld Discussions  >  General Community  >  Chit Chat  >  UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 ... 30 Go Down Reply
Author

UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure?

 (Read 8206 times)
Ruthie
Veteran
******
Posts: 8,345

Gender: Female
Location: East Midlands


Touch the sky - and touch it he did.

Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #90 on: May 31, 2010, 03:41 PM »
Reply

What really annoyed me was when Laws tried to argue that he didn't think he'd broken the rules because even though he and his partner lived together they didn't share a bank account or socialise together.  That wouldn't cut much ice if you were a benefit claimant trying to argue that you weren't living with a partner as man and wife.  Also apparently Laws had previously boasted of how low is expenses were.  But I agree that it's sad that he felt the need to conceal his sexuality.
IP Logged
Elly
Murraymaniac
**********
Posts: 28,719

Gender: Female
Location: The Heart of Shallowville


The mind doubts, but the heart never does.

Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #91 on: May 31, 2010, 03:56 PM »
Reply

What really annoyed me was when Laws tried to argue that he didn't think he'd broken the rules because even though he and his partner lived together they didn't share a bank account or socialise together.  That wouldn't cut much ice if you were a benefit claimant trying to argue that you weren't living with a partner as man and wife.  Also apparently Laws had previously boasted of how low is expenses were.  But I agree that it's sad that he felt the need to conceal his sexuality.
People are people, the world over.  Dishonesty knows no bounds - be it sexuality, politics or whatever. 
IP Logged
asimov
Satellite Level
**
Posts: 217


Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #92 on: May 31, 2010, 09:03 PM »
Reply

I am really glad that some civil servants, feel as disgusted by the whole thing as the general public and are willing to risk dismissal and even prison by leaking this poisonous behaviour to the public. In another post I stated, that the rich won’t pay their fair share of taxes (tax payers are mugs, who can’t afford accountants, by their standing), so when they get into parliament it is hardly surprising they continue as normal.
One of them defending Laws said something like this ‘the rules governing PM’s expenses are too complicated for the little people to understand’. These little people have nothing to with Gulliver’s Travels, it’s you and me he is talking about. He is correct, they have made the thing so complicated to hide the whole sorry mess from the public, however we don’t have to understand it, the smell is a dead give away.
IP Logged
Tommy
World No 1
*******
Posts: 12,842

Gender: Male
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire


woo hoo

Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #93 on: June 01, 2010, 11:35 PM »
Reply

Hmm....my feelings right now are that this coalition will be a success but I really DOUBT it will last 5 years.

I am totally against the idea of fixed termed parliaments. WTF happens when a Gov't loses its majority???
IP Logged
Aileen
Murraymaniac
**********
Posts: 34,071

Gender: Female
Location: Edinburgh


Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #94 on: June 02, 2010, 01:40 AM »
Reply

Hmm....my feelings right now are that this coalition will be a success but I really DOUBT it will last 5 years.

I am totally against the idea of fixed termed parliaments. WTF happens when a Gov't loses its majority???
It'll have to last five years if the idea of a fixed term parliament passes into law, unless of course the 55% rule is employed to force an election.

I like the idea, but think 5 years is too long.  4 would be better, as is the case with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and in both cases this arrangement seems to work well.  The shorter term would benefit Westminster since a lot of the time-wasting that goes on in getting measures through parliament would, of necessity, be reduced.   Also with fixed parliaments the electorate know exactly when the next election will take place, and there's no pussy-footing around by devious PMs keeping them guessing for weeks or months on end as Gordon Brown did.

I'd imagine if a government loses its majority, it would simply have to function as a minority one until the parliamentary term ends and an election is called, unless, of course, the 55% rule were used.




[ Last edit by Aileen June 02, 2010, 03:44 AM ] IP Logged
Aileen
Murraymaniac
**********
Posts: 34,071

Gender: Female
Location: Edinburgh


Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #95 on: June 02, 2010, 02:09 AM »
Reply

As for David Law's case, all I am prepared to say is that politics is a very, very dirty business where nobody is above suspicion.
That was my response to this post -
 
Also very interested in who is sneaking these leaks to the Telegraph...
Given the attempts to now discredit Danny Alexander, I'm in no doubt that there is definitely mischief afoot somewhere to destabilise the Coalition before it has even had a chance to get off the ground.
IP Logged
Yamor
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,663

Gender: Male

Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #96 on: June 02, 2010, 03:19 AM »
Reply

It is incorrect to say that fixed-term parliaments means that if a government loses it's majority, it'll just carry on as a minority government.


Here's how things currently work:

Government and parliament are two completely separate entities, with one rule - the government has to have the support of parliament.
Support is shown in parliament through confidence motions and supply bills.
If parliament pass a no confidence motion in the government, or do not ratify a supply bill, it shows that parliament do not support the government. The prime minister's job would then be to restore that support.
There are two ways he could possibly do that:
1) dissolve parliament, and have elections for a new parliament which will support his government
2) resign, and let the monarch choose someone else to form a government which would have the support of parliament.

Of course, in the case of option 1, if the new parliament still do not support his government, he'd be forced to use option 2.


With a fixed term parliament, the prime minister will be limited to option 2. Option 1 could only happen if 55% voted for it.
IP Logged
Aileen
Murraymaniac
**********
Posts: 34,071

Gender: Female
Location: Edinburgh


Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #97 on: June 02, 2010, 03:46 AM »
Reply

^ Thanks, Yamor.  Have amended my earlier post accordingly.
IP Logged
Bevc
Murraymaniac
**********
Posts: 35,255

Gender: Female
Location: Cambridge - New Zealand


I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter!

Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #98 on: June 02, 2010, 10:22 AM »
Reply

Can't believe that fixed term government is on the cards - was this part of their manifesto? They have them here and Oz but they are only for 3 years,which is better than 5.

Frederick Forsyth writes a column in the uk paper I read and he's up in arms over this. This is not what Cameron pledged - restore power to the people. naughty
IP Logged
Yamor
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,663

Gender: Male

Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #99 on: June 02, 2010, 11:17 AM »
Reply

Why is fixed terms bad? It was always up to the prime minister to dissolve parliament, now they're removing that power from him and giving it to parliament themselves - surely an improvement from the point of view of having open accountable government.
IP Logged
asimov
Satellite Level
**
Posts: 217


Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #100 on: June 02, 2010, 06:46 PM »
Reply

That was my response to this post -
 Given the attempts to now discredit Danny Alexander, I'm in no doubt that there is definitely mischief afoot somewhere to destabilise the Coalition before it has even had a chance to get off the ground.

Aileen, you got me lost:  Alexander was ‘switching’ homes to avoid tax. Many in the previous parliament repaid the tax money they had ‘legally stolen’ to the inland revenue, a Government Minister, resigned and many others stood down or got booted out at the election for the same ruse. Tax avoidance is simply using loopholes to avoid paying the tax you owe to the Nation and is unacceptable in an PM.
IP Logged
asimov
Satellite Level
**
Posts: 217


Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #101 on: June 02, 2010, 06:48 PM »
Reply

Why is fixed terms bad? It was always up to the prime minister to dissolve parliament, now they're removing that power from him and giving it to parliament themselves - surely an improvement from the point of view of having open accountable government.
IP Logged
asimov
Satellite Level
**
Posts: 217


Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #102 on: June 02, 2010, 06:53 PM »
Reply

Junior you could be right, it stops the Government from cutting and running, when the poles look good and if the Executive can no longer govern and the ‘queen’ can’t find a replacement, then the 55% rule would automatically lead to an early election.
IP Logged
Tommy
World No 1
*******
Posts: 12,842

Gender: Male
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire


woo hoo

Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #103 on: June 02, 2010, 09:56 PM »
Reply

I think it is wrong for a minority government to keep on working. It does not enjoy the support of the House.

I really hope this does not become law.
IP Logged
Yamor
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,663

Gender: Male

Re: UK Coalition Govt: Success or failure? « Reply #104 on: June 02, 2010, 10:50 PM »
Reply

Tommy, if you read my earlier explanation you will understand that that is completely untrue. This new rule would not affect anything concerning minority government. It has always been possible for there to be a minority government, and it will still be possible. No change at all.
IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 ... 30 Go Up Reply 
« previous next »