Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
How likely is this?
5 Answers
http://www.dailymail....General-Election.html
A coalition government, just as we had during WW2? In view of the present financial climate, would this be a good thing or bad?
To see a temporary end to all the cross party bickering, It would be refreshing to say the least, but Gordon Brown still as the PM, that would be another matter.
Who do you think would be best to lead this coalition government?
A coalition government, just as we had during WW2? In view of the present financial climate, would this be a good thing or bad?
To see a temporary end to all the cross party bickering, It would be refreshing to say the least, but Gordon Brown still as the PM, that would be another matter.
Who do you think would be best to lead this coalition government?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's a good question aog.
Sad to say, it assumes the political establishment is geared to providing the best governance for the country - I guess we'd all like to think so.
Instead, it seems the system is geared to keep running the machine that the political classes (politicos, their teams and senior civil servants) are trained and experienced in.
I say, keep the Civil Servants (who actually are the ones who shape and enact policy) and use E.R.N.I.E to select a people's parliament that is demographically representative of the nation to vote on direction and implementation measures. Pay everyone £100k a year plus a pad in London for 4 years service.
It might be slow and clunky but it would be 'our' slow and clunky.
Of course the existing political classes will have lots of arguments for why it's a bad idea, but then they would wouldn't they?
Perhaps acquainting a few of them with the nearest lamp post and a length of rope would change their minds.
Sad to say, it assumes the political establishment is geared to providing the best governance for the country - I guess we'd all like to think so.
Instead, it seems the system is geared to keep running the machine that the political classes (politicos, their teams and senior civil servants) are trained and experienced in.
I say, keep the Civil Servants (who actually are the ones who shape and enact policy) and use E.R.N.I.E to select a people's parliament that is demographically representative of the nation to vote on direction and implementation measures. Pay everyone £100k a year plus a pad in London for 4 years service.
It might be slow and clunky but it would be 'our' slow and clunky.
Of course the existing political classes will have lots of arguments for why it's a bad idea, but then they would wouldn't they?
Perhaps acquainting a few of them with the nearest lamp post and a length of rope would change their minds.
Bad unless the electoral system changes.
If you're the major party in a minority government you'll just wait until you fancy your chances then go to the country again.
Having said that that might not happen this time.
Clegg's not that likely to team up with Cameron for a number of reasons - Economic policy and Europe are the big two.
A partnership with Labour might last longer if they poll less than the Tories.
Can't wait to read the Mail's headline when Gordon stays in Number 10 - they'll go purple!
If you're the major party in a minority government you'll just wait until you fancy your chances then go to the country again.
Having said that that might not happen this time.
Clegg's not that likely to team up with Cameron for a number of reasons - Economic policy and Europe are the big two.
A partnership with Labour might last longer if they poll less than the Tories.
Can't wait to read the Mail's headline when Gordon stays in Number 10 - they'll go purple!
A coalition only works where there is a single aim whatever the consequences.
During the war labour could be directed to where it was needed think of the Bevan boys who had to go down the pits. No one could change their jobs without permission. Human rights as we know them didn't exist.
However even under those regulations there were strikes at times which prevented munitions getting to the troops. MPs had major disagreements. If that happened in wartime, what chance is there of happening now ? We even had an election before the war ended because they couldn't agree.
During the war labour could be directed to where it was needed think of the Bevan boys who had to go down the pits. No one could change their jobs without permission. Human rights as we know them didn't exist.
However even under those regulations there were strikes at times which prevented munitions getting to the troops. MPs had major disagreements. If that happened in wartime, what chance is there of happening now ? We even had an election before the war ended because they couldn't agree.
1 to 5 of 5
