Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:So RS you want the UK to join your country in your annual round of general elections as progress.

No, Roy, it's not an annual round – we're not Italy! – it is, on average, once every 3-and-a-half years.

Perhaps you would care to tell our American friends just how many General Elections and Government 'restructures' you have had since WW2. What is it now, a couple of dozen, or more?

About a quarter of the number of General Elections and Government 'restructures' Italy had since WW2.

And no, they are not talking coalition, they are talking about a degree of cooperation between parties.

They're "not talking coalition"?
Then you had better tell the BBC and the world media that, Roy, because nobody seems to know that.

That might be an average RS but some have lasted much less than that, and those have lasted longer have not always finished with the same parties in power as they started with! Comparing it with Italy only demonstrates the instability of PR. Coalitions in the UK have lasted less than 18 months usually. Already here there is talk of another election in the Autumn.
The majority of people here would not know a coalition from a working agreement, at the time I posted that remark that was the 'officeal' line.
New Zealand changed to PR 20 yrs ago and is now discussing a change back as people are pissed off with the time taken to form governments and the uncertainties that causes.
Your country takes and average of 6 wks to form a government, Belgium has taken 10, and Italy? Who cares?
An agreement here between Labour and Lib-Dems would be seen as a liason of losers!
One Billy Bragg, Loony Labour activist come musician, stated in a London rally two days ago that he wanted PR, that he was disgusted with the deals that were going on behind locked doors. Shows how much he knows about PR.
PR is very democratic at the ballot box, but subsequently the government is decided by politicians, not the electorate.

Roy.

subsequently the government is decided by politicians, not the electorate.

True almost everywhere, my friend.....except over here where the lobbyists call the shots!

I'm waiting to see what will happen if this lot don't come to a workable arrangement, a few more weeks and this country will be without legal governance, I think!

Roy.

Digit wrote:a few more weeks and this country will be without legal governance, I think!

Very likely due to one of those arcane 200 year old bylaws I referred to earlier! Your legal attic direly needs a thorough spring cleaning! It is weighing down heavily on your house.

But just think: why would being "without legal governance" be a problem? It is only a problem if you make it so. So change the fucking law and get on with it. Tackle the problem, get it out of the way. And move on.

BTW: what does your "PR" mean? When I use it it means Public Relations...

Our government doesn't run on bye laws RS, you've got your facts wrong.
Without legal governance be a problem? No! Not as long as your not expecting to be paid a pension, wages in the public sector, or taxes collected etc.
Quite how we would change the law without legal governance you don't explain BTW and quite how that could be implemented I can't imagine.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Our government doesn't run on bye laws RS, you've got your facts wrong.
Without legal governance be a problem? No! Not as long as your not expecting to be paid a pension, wages in the public sector, or taxes collected etc.
Quite how we would change the law without legal governance you don't explain BTW and quite how that could be implemented I can't imagine.

Neither can I, because it's the first time that ever happened. And it is going to happen because UK politics have willfully avoided, ignored the subject for decades, nay, for centuries. So when it does happen it will be of their own making. And it'll be interesting to see how they're gonna juggle the consequences. Because of course there are going to be consequences of that conservative attitude!
Shit happens.

I would note RS that your country's constitution has been amended, would that have been to deal with what the originator's had not foreseen perhaps?
This is in fact where our lack of a constitution cames to the fore, we are not bounden by a set of rules written in the early 19th C.
And again you are ill informed, this is far from being the first time the UK has faced this situation, and we sorted it!
One of the strange things about the current position is the fact that so many are shouting for some form of PR to replace first past the post, when common sense shows that had this election been conducted under any of the various systems currently being touted we would be facing exactly this same situation.
Odd that!

Roy.

Odd that "PR" of yours too. Again, what do you mean by it?

Digit wrote:I would note RS that your country's constitution has been amended, would that have been to deal with what the originator's had not foreseen perhaps?

Does it matter? It was deemed necessary at the time, so they did it! And that's good: it keeps a constitution up to date!
A constitution is not, or at least should not be, etched in stone. It didn't come down from the Gods as the Ten Commandments or the Seven Pillars. It is a man-made agreed upon tool to manage national society. And if society changes so do, or at least should, its management tools of course!
And I have news for you: society has changed! And IS changing all the time. We're in the 21st century now and consequently laws and constitutions require more frequent updating than ever. Because they are by definition of course obsolete from the very moment of their inception.
Luckily we have ICT, the internet, and GPS to help us deal with all that now.

Digit wrote:And again you are ill informed, this is far from being the first time the UK has faced this situation, and we sorted it!

Did I say you wouldn't? I don't recall that I did, Roy! In fact I said I was curious how they would juggle it. Implying that they would, if I'm not mistaken.

Digit wrote:One of the strange things about the current position is the fact that so many are shouting for some form of PR to replace first past the post, when common sense shows that had this election been conducted under any of the various systems currently being touted we would be facing exactly this same situation.
Odd that!

Speculate what you will, we'll never know, will we now?

Yes we do know RS, off the top of my head the Conservatives obtained 36% of the votes, Labour 26% and Lib Dems 23%, thus, any system that truly represented the votes as cast would give similar numbers of seats to the three parties, and thence the same position as now.
Yes we will sort it, but I suspect we will be lucky to reach the end of this year without another election if the Labour and LDs form a coalition.
In England, as opposd to the UK, there is considerable resentment concerning the manner in which Blair scraped a number of victories via the votes from Scottish Labour MPs. They foisted laws onto England that they voted out in Scotland!
A Labour Lib Dem coalition will still be short of a working majority, and thus need the votes of the Nationalists to foist laws onto England that they have rejected in their own countries! That will not be popular!
Further there could be legal challenges inupto 20 constituencies with the possibilty of re-runs there, which could completely nullify any discussions bewtween any groups!
The plot thickens.
The Labour and the Libs have been here before and both got their fingers burnt, but politicians here all have two things in common, short memories and no knowledge of history, if they had they wouldn't keep repeating the same mistakes.

Roy.

Luckily for us, Dig, we have Jon Stewart to sort out your rowdy politics for us...otherwise we Yanks could never understand what is going on.


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-m ... parliament

Half our people don't either Min.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Half our people don't either Min.

Optimist!

Looks like you've got a coalition of (very) strange bedfellows going there.