But doesn't it mean that a crap Government can remain in place for years while never being able to pass any Bills? It doesn't make sense! If anyone had suggested this on the TV debates they would have been ridiculed.
General Election 2010 Page 133
Quote: Badge @ May 13 2010, 1:21 AM BSTBut doesn't it mean that a crap Government can remain in place for years while never being able to pass any Bills? It doesn't make sense! If anyone had suggested this on the TV debates they would have been ridiculed.
Why does it suggest that? If it loses a vote of confidence then the Government would be gone, now and then. No? And a crap Government would have a vote called, surely?
Quote: Badge @ May 13 2010, 1:21 AM BSTBut doesn't it mean that a crap Government can remain in place for years while never being able to pass any Bills? It doesn't make sense! If anyone had suggested this on the TV debates they would have been ridiculed.
You're talking like passing loads of bills is a good thing.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 13 2010, 1:25 AM BSTYou're talking like passing loads of bills is a good thing.
Being able to pass bills is good - nay, necessary. Actually doing so has no inherent positive or negative.
Quote: Aaron @ May 13 2010, 1:28 AM BSTBeing able to pass bills is good - nay, necessary.
The House of Commons hasn't lost its ability to pass bills. The government hasn't either. Now, bills will be passed with a few more checks and balances than before.
Quote: Aaron @ May 13 2010, 1:25 AM BSTWhy does it suggest that? If it loses a vote of confidence then the Government would be gone, now and then. No? And a crap Government would have a vote called, surely?
I'm assuming they need a majority of the House to pass bills but they might only have 46% of the House to survive a confidence vote?
I'm not talking day to day but wouldn't this allow a farcical outcome?
Quote: Badge @ May 13 2010, 1:33 AM BSTI'm assuming they need a majority of the House to pass bills but they might only have 46% of the House to survive a confidence vote?
I'm not talking day to day but wouldn't this allow a farcical outcome?
Ah, I see. Right, well, yes; that would be somewhat farcical if it were to occur repeatedly. But in practice - taking into account abstainees, cross-party support etc - it would, surely, just ensure that bills passed were fewer, and hopefully better, as they'd have to get support across the house.
Everything always looks rosy in theory.
True.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 13 2010, 1:08 AM BSTI don't think I'd trust anybody who wasn't.
Floating voters are just self interested people who don't know much about politics. They lurch off in whatever direction they hear the sound of a slice of bread being buttered like the electoral undead.
You can paint them as knife-sharp, flexible free thinkers if you want, but they're really not. They're the sort of people you hear wittering on about all politicians being the same when their Council Tax bill goes up.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 13 2010, 2:54 AM BSTFloating voters are just self interested people who don't know much about politics. They lurch off in whatever direction they hear the sound of a slice of bread being buttered like the electoral undead.
You can paint them as knife-sharp, flexible free thinkers if you want, but they're really not. They're the sort of people you hear wittering on about all politicians being the same when their Council Tax bill goes up.
You seem to have some serious misplaced anger issues right now, Godot. There's nothing wrong with a floating voter, and to brandish them all as "just self interested" is absolutely ludicrous.
I'm fairly certain that self-interest is the reason we have elections in the first place.
I smell mendacity is all Big Daddy. 
From a philisophical standpoint we are all self interested beings and everything that we make happen is out of self interest. I assume Mr Taxis is referring more to selfishness, self involvement, insularity, excessive individuality, greed, rather than being community spirited? Many are like this, as Thatcher and Regan both realised to their benefit.
I take it that this 'big society' vision that got totally lost in the election campaign was Cameron's attempt to settle people's fears that a new Conservative Govt would not be a return to Thatcherism's most damaging aspects??? To that extent I think having the Libdems on board can only help their image and maybe even check against the kind of policies that favour corporations over communities and individuals over society. These Tories do need to be watched closely.