Jump to content

British General Election Thread


SpiceMan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Actually the Scots hate Cameron. The Conservative Party party got 1 seat out of 59 in Scotland.

 

The Scottish Nationalist Party has 6 seats so could plunder wealthy England as part of a deal with Labour and the Lib Dems.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also seems that the British national debt is tantamount impossible to bring down unless some serious cuts are made in government spending and its eerily similar to the U.S. in that the people and their government don't have the stomatch to make the tough, hard decisions in order to bring it about.

 

I would like to expand on your point.

 

UK governments are much less accountable to the public than in the U.S. British people usually only get to vote for Parliament every 5 years, so politicians are happy to tax like hell then cut taxes just before the general election. Both Labour and Conservatives were able to make large reductions in the national debt when the economy was good. When the economy soured both had less money from taxes so they let things slide. The bank rescue is an enormous additional problem this time as much more money was spent in the U.K. than in the U.S., even though our economy is only one seventh the size.

 

Whatever government emerges will probably not last long. There will be no chance to fix the deficit before the next general election and the parties won't even try. Whoever forms this government will be blamed next time for the economic mess they inherited anyway. I don't think there will be a coalition government because Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will be careful not to get too close to either the Conservatives or Labour. He knows that which ever party doesn't cooperate now will win a majority in the next election, unless Clegg can change the voting system first. He will not be able to do that, he is just trying to avoid being too tarnished when the chickens come home to roost.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CS, as an American are you impressed with the way that in the UK the whole election process is over in 1 month, with none of the ridiculous circus that is the US elections?

 

Ours is too involved and too much gets placed on things that shouldn't matter instead of substance. It gets too petty.

 

While I think yours is better, much better, I saw enough to think it does share some of the bad things with us. The debates for example, a first what from what I believe, had a lot of the same posturing and candidates looking for sound bytes that would make the papers as we do.

 

I do hope for a really good parliament as its not only good for Britain but as America's closest ally its good for us as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are examples of minority governments, they don't get much done though and seldom last long. Italy seems to have them all the time.

Every bill that's presented to parliament has to be negotiated first to get enough votes to pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US electoral system is archaic - established in the late 18th century. (No, I don't mean the electoral college but the whole system.) Representatives serve two years, which means after just one year in office they have to start working on re-election. Senators at six years are maybe in too long. But at least most states have a primary election for the parties to choose their candidates. Utah is strange in many ways (not just in being mostly Mormon). A convention of politicians chooses the nominees and has just booted out Senator Bob Bennett, who has represented the state in the Senate for 18 years! He doesn't even get to run in the primary (though at 76 it's time for him to call it quits).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...