Talks over between Labour, Liberal Democrats: BBC

MarketWatch ^ | May 11, 2010, 11:13 a.m. EDT | William L. Watts

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office has recognized that talks between the third-party Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party won't reach a positive conclusion, the BBC reported Tuesday.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

BBC:

Hung parliament: Labour 'know Lib Dem talks over'

************************************EXCERPT**********************************

The decision appears to clear the way for a Lib Dem and Tory deal which would see David Cameron succeeding Labour's Gordon Brown as prime minister.

The Lib Dems and Conservative teams are still in talks, four days after the UK election delivered a hung parliament.

[Jack Black]

You know our AmeroLibs constantly talk up the parlimentary system as superior to our electoral college system. We are seeing the down side right now.

Has anyone else found it interesting that the US Army always sets up parlimentary systems when we are colonizing places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, etc. Why not set up a system like ours?

I have often felt that Bush should have given the Iraqi's the US Constitution (possibly eliminating the commerce clause and the general welfare clause) as their new Constitution. After all it has procedures for modification built in. Didn't Bush and Co. think the USA was the greatest nation on earth? Did they secretly wish to be British? Never understood that, still don't.

[relictele]

Proving the adage about democracy, two wolves, a sheep, etc.

Proportional representation has turned many a European parliament into nonproductive white noise.

Liberals love ‘proportional representation’ because it allows them to make demands without accountability for the results. Anyone who wants to see the reality of PR need only look at Greece.

[GeronL]

Can the UK be forced to have another election?

[GeronL]

They don’t need PR, yuck, they need a run-off system. Some of those sats were won with 30% of the vote. weird.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I thought it was the UN that demanded the parliament system...

[Retired Greyhound]

So Ed Balls couldn’t pull it off (LOL, I love Britain).

If Cameron were smart (he is NOT) he would tell Clegg to take a hike and govern as a conservative.

But he is an accomodationist “conservative”. Basically, he is a RINO.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think they have procedures....the Queen might get involved also.

[relictele]

The Prime Minister (if they get around to choosing one) can ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament although this request is largely symbolic.

The PM can declare an election, yes, and there is the possibility of a ‘snap’ election. However, such elections are usually a strategy to reinforce incumbents’ power which Brown has just ceded (personally).

It’s all very tricky because the Queen does not want to meddle in politics directly. She is all too aware of the anti-monarchy crowd and despite any Constitutional powers or obligations would probably try to avoid anything that would add fuel to the republican (small r) fire.

[C19fan]

Has anyone else found it interesting that the US Army always sets up parlimentary systems when we are colonizing places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, etc. Why not set up a system like ours?

The US Presidential system has not exported well. Latin America adopted US-type consitutions after they won independence from Spain but they usually degenerated into thugs becoming President for life. The reason the US system worked here is because of the culture and traditions that underly it; George Washington playing a critical role in establishing those traditions. In places like Iraq with fractured body politics parliamentary systems with an executive directly answerable to parliament is better at preventing, or at least in theory, a "caudillo" from assuming power.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Has anyone else found it interesting that the US Army always sets up parlimentary systems when we are colonizing places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, etc. Why not set up a system like ours?

Simple, too much reliance on pointy-headed academics like Paul Bremer to formulate the plan.

(possible secondary reason, some of these countries have such a low literacy rate that making an X on the ballot next to the logo of your preferred party is sometimes the best you can hope for)

[Nervous Tick]

>> I have often felt that Bush should have given the Iraqi’s the US Constitution

Given?

I have often felt that we should have beaten the holy living crap out of them — ZERO tolerance for their uprisings and terrorism, women, children and mosques be damned.

Then, once THEY understood that they were utterly broken and defeated with NO hope or recourse — we should have benevolently shoved a proper constitutional democracy down their throats, to implement whether they liked it or not.

And we should have expropriated land for bases and made it clear that we would be occupying said bases indefinitely, and to hell with their muslim sensibilities.

Hey, it worked pretty well in Germany and Japan.

Pity we’re too damn PC and stoopid to learn from history. Even recent history.

[FateAmenableToChange]

I have often felt that Bush should have given the Iraqi's the US Constitution (possibly eliminating the commerce clause and the general welfare clause) as their new Constitution. After all it has procedures for modification built in. Didn't Bush and Co. think the USA was the greatest nation on earth? Did they secretly wish to be British? Never understood that, still don't.

The US Constitution only works with a highly-educated society of relatively homogenous judeo-christian morality. That's why the elitists pretty much ignore it now.

[Aussie Patriot]

You can’t compare Iraq to places like Germany and Japan. Both of those countries had traditions of democracy and (classical) liberalism. The people of Japan and Germany considered themselves, well, Japanese and German. The same cannot be said of Iraq. They have no tradition of democracy and they are too loyal to their tribe and their faith for democracy to be a realistic option. Their options are either chaos or tyranny.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Bit more detail ...from the NY Times:

Conservatives Gaining Edge in British Jockeying

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

BBC:

UK coalition: 'Why the rush?' asks Dutch journalist

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From yesterday....BBC:

Hung parliament: Tories' 'final offer' on vote reform

*********************************************EXCERPT****************************************

The Conservatives have made a "final offer" to the Lib Dems of a referendum on electoral reform as the battle to form the UK's next government heats up.

Tory deputy leader William Hague said he would offer Nick Clegg's party a vote on the Alternative Vote system.

It comes after Gordon Brown, who said he was standing down as Labour leader, offered to put AV into law with a referendum for voters to approve it.

The Lib Dems must now decide which party they want to back.

In the interests of trying to create a stable, secure government we will go the extra mile and we will offer to the Liberal Democrats, in a coalition government, the holding of a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, so that the people of this country can decide William Hague Shadow foreign secretary Q&A: Alternative voting systems

Speaking outside the House of Commons, Mr Hague urged the Lib Dems to accept the Tory deal, arguing that to join with Labour would mean "a second unelected prime minister in a row" and the imposition of voting reform without first consulting the public in a referendum.

This was later denied by Labour sources, who said they would pass a law on AV immediately, but then hold a referendum to allow voters to approve or reject it. There were also unconfirmed reports Labour was offering the prospect of full proportional representation at a later stage.

Mr Hague said a deal with the Tories was the only way to guarantee the "strong, stable government" the Lib Dems say they want, as it would give the two parties a "secure Parliamentary majority of 76".

[Nervous Tick]

>> They have no tradition of democracy

Maybe it’s time to start one.

And it might be easier with fewer Iraqis. If you get my drift.

[Jack Black]

The US Constitution only works with a highly-educated society of relatively homogenous judeo-christian morality. That's why the elitists pretty much ignore it now.

If true, we're screwed.