UK Election: 6 May 2010

We won :)

Quote:

---

• A wholly or mainly elected house of Lords.

---

Good, more populism. That always works well. Seriously, why not just scrap it entirely, if you're going to do that? :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

Man, reading that list, i wish id voted tory. Except for that hard line against europe, which ive always disagreed with.

The lib dems without their euro policies or their social welfare policies (old people tax cuts, mansion tax, $10000 tax threshold) seem just what i always suspected them of being - a nothing party of idealists.

Ah well, looks like ill have a chance to rectify things before the year is out.

Funny, im seeing a lot of people on my facebook talking about this being "the darkest days in britain since thatcher". What the fuck do they know about how bad it was under thatcher? The only people ive ever spoken to about that who show any real hatred are older workmates who were in unions at the time. Certainly no one my age was especially affected directly by her. Except for losing our free milk, of course...

---

I think you will find that this coalition will give you a government that pretty much works on a platform of the sensible parts of both manifestoes while shedding the batfuck crazy stuff that was in them to keep the batfuck crazies quiet.

With a majority as big as they have in the House the government can afford to ignore those batfuck crazies too; they can afford sensible policies and push them through even if the crazies don't like them and vote against or abstain.

For the first time in a very long time I also have some hope for a British government that behaves a bit more like a normal government in the relations with the rest of the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

In a country where pretty much everything is dealth with in referenda the difference between a constitution and a normal law is largely irrelevant.

And even so, you've got the Bundesgesetz über die politischen Rechte that really rules elections.

---

Of course there is a law or a legal ordinance (verordnung) for almost every article in the Swiss constitution.

There is a very big difference. If it is part of the constitution it can only be changed by a referendum (obligatory/constitutive referendum). And it has to pass the majority of people and the majority of cantons. While a law can be changed by the parliament Laws only have to pass the majory of the people and only if the referendum is taken (for example by get 50,000 signatures).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland

And despite your comment, most changes of laws actually won't have a referendum, only the ones that are controversial.

Yep I'm not too displeased with how things have turned out really.

For now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Of course there is a law or a legal ordinance (verordnung) for almost every article in the Swiss constitution.

There is a very big difference. If it is part of the constitution it can only be changed by a referendum (obligatory/constitutive referendum). And it has to pass the majority of people and the majority of cantons. While a law can be changed by the parliament Laws only have to pass the majory of the people and only if the referendum is taken (for example by get 50,000 signatures).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland

And despite your comment, most changes of laws actually won't have a referendum, only the ones that are controversial.

---

Yeah well, that makes Switzerland special; you are more of a direct democracy than a representative democracy. Even though you have representatives, it's relatively easy to take back control from them and very often it's even required that they ask the people. It also means Switzerland is not a template for how things go in other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

It also means Switzerland is not a template for how things go in other countries.

---

I totally agree, but the fact that way the Nationalrat is voted is at least defined in the constitution to be representative has little to do with the (semi-)direct democracy of the country. The passage I quoted could stay the same way even if we decide to get rid of your direct democratic rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So you support it for purely political reasons? I thought you didn't like politics as usual. :bored;

---

No, I support it because I think parties should get a number of seats approximately equivalent to their percentage of the vote. I don't see why this is such a controversial position, TBH.

Quote:

---

I think you will find that this coalition will give you a government that pretty much works on a platform of the sensible parts of both manifestoes while shedding the batfuck crazy stuff that was in them to keep the batfuck crazies quiet.

---

Yeah, exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Good, more populism. That always works well. Seriously, why not just scrap it entirely, if you're going to do that? :bored:

---

Why not abolish your Senate?

It should either be elected or abolished. The one thing that's been almost worse than having a Lords which people are born into, is a Lords were condition of entry is a £1mn donation to Tony Blair :rolleyes:

FPTP lower-house determining the government, with a PR upper-house as an 'amending chamber' (not to just obstruct bills) would be a good compromise I think. Like Aus has.

I think so far it does indeed look like taking the best bits from both, which is a good thing. I think this is quite make-or-break for both parties. Its a good chance for the Lib-Dems especially to show that coalition government can work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Why not abolish your Senate?

It should either be elected or abolished.

---

That kind of misses the point of a bicameral government, though doesn't it? Elect one, to represent "the will of the people" and appoint one to keep populism in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

No, I support it because I think parties should get a number of seats approximately equivalent to their percentage of the vote. I don't see why this is such a controversial position, TBH.

---

It shouldn't be. On the surface it is the most democratic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

That kind of misses the point of a bicameral government, though doesn't it? Elect one, to represent "the will of the people" and appoint one to keep populism in check.

---

Yeah, but the senate makes a decent stab at this, with the 6 year term to avoid populist fads and the state-wide election to avoid local concentrations of crazies. Appointments would be much more corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

That kind of misses the point of a bicameral government, though doesn't it? Elect one, to represent "the will of the people" and appoint one to keep populism in check.

---

I think that's got very little to do with the selection method. It's got more to do with the way the 'chamber of reflection' works. If you make make both bodies full fledged legislators (of the type you have in the US and that Randblade seems to favour) you can expect both to be populist. If you'd deny either of the two chambers the right of initiative or amendment that chamber no longer has an incentive to follow populist impulses.

Our senate is frightfully boring. They typically fret about constitutionality and 'relation to existing legislation'. In almost 200 years only once did our senate bring down a government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Yeah, but the senate makes a decent stab at this, with the 6 year term to avoid populist fads and the state-wide election to avoid local concentrations of crazies. Appointments would be much more corrupt.

---

I know I mentioned this before, but there's an excellent article showing how the direct election of senators spelled the end to states rights. All you have to do is look at when the 17th amendment passed and when imperial presidencies started to take shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I know I mentioned this before, but there's an excellent article showing how the direct election of senators spelled the end to states rights. All you have to do is look at when the 17th amendment passed and when imperial presidencies started to take shape.

---

Well, to be fair, states rights were given a death blow 50 years earlier when the president went to war with states he didn't like, but sure, the 17th amendment was something of a final nail in the coffin, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Well, to be fair, states rights were given a death blow 50 years earlier when the president went to war with states he didn't like, but sure, the 17th amendment was something of a final nail in the coffin, I suppose.

---

The War did weaken states rights, but only on some political issues. The direct election of senators got rid of the only actors who had an interest in preserving the rights of states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The War did weaken states rights, but only on some political issues.

---

It ultimately settled the issue of what happens when the federal government disagrees with the states. That's not how it was worked out prior to the Civil War, silly kitty. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I know I mentioned this before, but there's an excellent article showing how the direct election of senators spelled the end to states rights. All you have to do is look at when the 17th amendment passed and when imperial presidencies started to take shape.

---

I'm sorry, I don't remember it. I would be very interested. I will say that states' rights have never been a huge concern for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

It ultimately settled the issue of what happens when the federal government disagrees with the states. That's not how it was worked out prior to the Civil War, silly kitty. :p

---

Depends. The Supreme Court was still there to stop the federal government from encroaching too much. The SC only started ruling for the federal government when the states willingly turned over most of their powers (which happened to coincide with the legislative branch turning over most of its powers to the executive branch).

I'll take your word for it. All I really get out of listening to you describe the history of our nation's slide into tyranny is a burning desire to nuke the Eastern Seaboard. :p

The northeast states weren't the ones who ratified it first (Mass. and NY excepting). :o

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am17

Doesn't matter, as the Eastern Seaboard is where D.C. is located. As well as Langley. And I'll be damned if I die before subjecting Boston to a nuclear holocaust.

So, your history is irrelevant to my thermonuclear designs. :p

Just make sure it's before the Red Sox win the next World Series. :o And make sure the wind is blowing to the north.

Apparently, the coalition is planning a mass-repeal bill of Labor's wacky civil liberties violations over the past 13 years. The Lib-Dem manifesto has a 'freedom bill' in it, which offers:

Quote:

---

• Scrap ID cards for everyone, including foreign nationals.
• Ensure that there are no restrictions in the right to trial by jury for serious offences including fraud.
• Restore the right to protest in Parliament Square, at the heart of our democracy.
• Abolish the flawed control orders regime.
• Renegotiate the unfair extradition treaty with the United States.
• Restore the right to public assembly for more than two people.
• Scrap the ContactPoint database of all children in Britain.
• Strengthen freedom of information by giving greater powers to the Information Commissioner and reducing exemptions.
• Stop criminalising trespass.
• Restore the public interest defence for whistleblowers.
• Prevent allegations of ‘bad character’ from being used in court.
• Restore the right to silence when accused in court.
• Prevent bailiffs from using force.
• Restrict the use of surveillance powers to the investigation of serious crimes and stop councils snooping.
• Restore the principle of double jeopardy in UK law.
• Remove innocent people from the DNA database.
• Reduce the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 14 days.
• Scrap the ministerial veto which allowed the Government to block the release of Cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq war.
• Require explicit parental consent for biometric information to be taken from children.
• Regulate CCTV following a Royal Commission on cameras.

---

quooaah-paah bitches.

Goddamnit Britain stop ruining the rise of fascism :mad:

Again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Apparently, the coalition is planning a mass-repeal bill of Labor's wacky civil liberties violations over the past 13 years. The Lib-Dem manifesto has a 'freedom bill' in it, which offers:



quooaah-paah bitches.

---

Thats fantastic. Labours civil liberties' violations were my chief bone of contention with them, far more than iraq and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Apparently, the coalition is planning a mass-repeal bill of Labor's wacky civil liberties violations over the past 13 years. The Lib-Dem manifesto has a 'freedom bill' in it, which offers:

---

So did the Conservatives :)

Could one of you Brits kindly explain this to me?

As in, what the hell is the deal here, and why do you crazy people care about blocking his extradition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /.

In UK, Hacker Demands New Government Block Extradition

Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon has called on the newly elected British government to put its money where its mouth is and tear up his extradition order. US prosecutors have been trying to get McKinnon before a New Jersey court for seven years after they caught him hacking into US military and NASA computers looking for evidence of UFOs. David Cameron, the newly elected prime minister, and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, had both voiced their support for McKinnon's campaign against extradition. Other ministers in the coalition government had branded the extradition unjust. Clegg had even joined McKinnon's mother, Janis Sharp, on a protest march."

---

Really, only in the UK could an admitted felon get popular support for not being tried, based on whackball UFO theories.

Meanwhile, yous guys convict people for making jokes on Twitter to their friends. :bulb:

Anti-Americanism. There was also a scandal about some British businessmen getting extradited to the US for fraud, despite Brits calling for the heads of businessmen who committed fraud in Britain.

EDIT: Feel this would derail the Election thread so I'm going to start up a new thread ...