The United Kingdom, the mother of all democracies, is about to change its political system in fundamental ways — changes that will spell disaster for the nation and for its politics. For those who love Britain, the news of these impending alterations can only cause angst and distress.
As a result of the inability of either the Conservatives or Labor to win a majority in Parliament in the recent elections, both parties had to bid for support from the Liberal/Social Democratic Party. The price the Conservatives ultimately paid was to agree to some of these changes and to refer others to the electorate for a referendum.
The changes that the parties have agreed to will transform the British government from a decisive decision-making machine into a morass of compromise, half-measures and deadlock. Gridlock will be exported across the ocean to the United Kingdom.
Right now, the prime minister can dissolve Parliament anytime he wants, forcing new elections. He is also obliged to order new elections if he loses a vote of confidence. This power holds the members of his parliamentary majority in check and restrains them from turning on their leaders since, should they succeed in a vote of no confidence, it would plunge them into the uncertainty of a new election, which would imperil their own seats.
The new rules would bar the prime minister from dissolving Parliament during its five-year term and vest that right in a two-thirds majority of parliament. In other words, Parliament would have to vote itself out of office — something likely never to happen.
What's the problem with preferential voting? That's the way we've been doing it in Australia for several generations, and it works perfectly well – not in the alarmist way the author suggests. In fact, it is the non-preferential system which is undemocratic. It locks the electorate into a two-party system, prevents the rise of new parties, and tends to throw the election to minority candidates if there is any sort of split in a major party.
you mean gridlock …like herfein the U S ?
Britain seems to have made shooting itself in the foot something of a specialty these past few years. I must travel to Britain frequently for business reasons, and I must admit that the "British character" seems to have been reformed to eliminate "spine." This is why British businesspersons enjoy so very little trust internationally. Perhaps someone will connect a few dots eventually, but it is already too late for Britain.
Though I do not agree with the current Administrations policies; Domestic (social/economic) or Foreign (groveling), I must remind that we have shown support for Israel in overly abundant manners throughout its' history.
Many decades of wars and conflicts in the Middle East prove that this support has in no way brought peace to that region. Past presidents have tried, yet none have succeeded. Israel has always had the upper hand in any conflict. It is a true nuclear power, whereas its' opponents are impotent; militarily against this US supported and equipped military "Goliath".
Perhaps; Obama (having had more insight into the Muslim mind than any other President before him) feels that decades of one-sided support and Zillions of tax dollars later; he might take another tack on the overall situation. He will never "abandon" Israel, because Rahm and the strongest lobby in America won't let him. But if showing a tad more respect and evenhandedness in that region can bring these factions to the table again, it might be worth a shot.
It is truly sad to see this same once great country, the very same one that at one time, beat the stuffing out of the French and Spanish navies, ruled half the world, founded the great countries of the United States and Canada, held off the Nazis in WWII and gave the world the Lee-Enfield rifle fall into such a sorry state.
Here in the Republic of Ireland, we are saddled with the "Proportional Representation – Single Transferable Vote" system. It is far too complicated to describe here, but suffice to say that it almost always results in a coalition of parties in government. That might not be bad if the electorate had a clue as to who might end up in that government. However, the fact is that, politicians being politicians, they will cobble together any two or three parties to form a government. These entities might be left wing, right, anything that enables power to be grabbed. The ridiculous thing about it is that the SECOND most popular party is ALWAYS left out: the leading party bribes the less popular parties to join with them to form a majority – the bribes consisting of positions in the Cabinet, policies conceded, etc. One never knows who is going to end up in power, but it will certainly be the main party plus one or two the least popular ones – depending on the required numbers. At present, one of the parties with the most say in government (the Green Party) obtained only 5% of the overall vote. What a pathetic way to run a country. Great Britain, beware! Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.
The new rule can only help hasten the Islamification of Great Britain. Good bye, Great Britain!
Do you not think this is just SLIGHTLY a bit over the top? lol
Having a fixed term parliament is not the end of Britain for heaven's sake.
Who was it earlier on moaning about a spine? Pull yourself together man! This is not the end of Britain. It is the end of the PM being allowed to call a snap general election. There are fixed terms of the President and Congress/Senate in the US, its not exactly been the end of America has is it!
This change was to provide a stable government, so that neither side in the Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition can ditch the other. Its hardly something to get worked over, and I voted labour!