Oh I didnt say your theories wouldnt be scientifically profound. I said your theories do not apply in this very case. That's coming from a country where the whole political system is built for forming coalitions, where coalition building happens on the daily and where a compromise and comprimising is seen as something inherently good. Ill send you this to your country where the political system is exactly the opposite of all of that and where there dont seem to be much real life experience with the whole topic. Kind of like with socialism, health care, not invading other countries on a whim, etc.
Because if the fixed parliament act no general election can occur prior to 5 years right. So a minority goverment can govern theoretically for 5 years without calling another general election is that right.........
Well, it took a fascist Fuhrer state with an misanthropic ideology to do that while you just needed the modern "western democracy" of today.
Maybe the name Otto von Bismarck never popped up in your history classes, but he sure did in mine. See what I mean?
That would be the 19th century when war was just another instrument of politics. Look at what Britain did in India or Africa. The German Empire also does not fulfill the requirement "democracy". Maybe the history classes werent as good. Public education - another aspect where you might need to take a look at European socialism.
War is no longer an instrument of politics, eh. Okay. Sure. You keep believing what you want. Just because we're a democracy does not mean we aren't allowed to go to war. I didn't agree with the Iraq war, but "socialists" in Britain did, and I can think of a number of African conflicts where European countries have decided to intervene militarily in the past fifteen years (DRC, Mali) when they weren't wanted and at least one occasion where they were wanted and did not intervene (Rwanda). So let's put aside the holier-than-thou shit. It'd be condescending if it weren't so incorrect.
Nice strawman. Doesnt change the fact it took us for the type of states I mentioned earlier and the turmoils of the 20th century while you as a democracy waged a war on a whim in practically the most peaceful period in recent time. thats all I said. Any talking around that fact is a life-lie.
No - a no-confidence vote will force an election within 14 days unless reversed. Also, a general election can be called with a two thirds majority vote. What the Fixed Term Parliament Act does do is make the Queen's Speech no longer a confidence vote, although a confidence motion could be linked to it.
The largest reason why Germans no longer go to war with other states has something to do with the 50,000 US troops in bases on German soil and not with the type of government or the lessons citizens learned from the past. We see this every time the French Foreign Legion intervenes in one of its foreign colonies (ought they know better, too?) or when Britain and Poland join us in a war (didn't they become democracies after observing the horrors of war?), or when the Swiss ban minarets or when the Italians reject refugees from the Arab Spring. Get over yourself. You're no better than us. And it still doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives would rather join in a coalition with UKIP than with the Lib Dems or Labor.
50000 pose no threat to not existing enemies. They are actually defending American intelligence services stationed in central Europe. Germany is actually doing you guys a favor. The rest is superficial bullshit and you know it. No, conservatives would rather join no coalition than go together with Ukip. Why? Cause they are not retarded 6-year-olds.
Please refrain from using that word. It's a slur. I will report you to the mods the next time you use it.
You wish my friend. That would be horrible for the United Kingdom. Labour destroyed Britain, the SNP as a member of this hypothetical horrendous government should not be able to make or vote on English laws. Labour/SNP government would mean higher taxes, an increase in the debt and deficit, surrendering complete sovereignty to the Brussels as well as mass immigration. The Tories are the only option for Britain, in a prefect world a UKIP-Tory coalition would be ideal.
three new polls out today TNS (3 point Labour lead) Labour 33%, Conservative 30%, UKIP 19%, Lib Dems 8%, Greens 4% ^ that would give Labour 313 seats, Conservative 246, 13 short of a majority. Panelbase (6 point Labour lead) Labour 37%, Conservative 31%, UKIP 16%, Lib Dems 8%, Greens 4% ^ that would give Labour 324, Conservative 238, 2 short of majority Survation poll (4 point Labour lead) Labour 35%, Conservative 31%, UKIP 15%, Lib Dems 9%, Greens 4%. We also have to take into account the SNP who are expected to win at least 40+ seats. SNP have said they will do everything they can to make sure the Tories are not in power after the election and said they want to form an alliance with Labour or support Labour to kick the Tories out.
Colm, have you read FiveThirtyEight's take on the upcoming election? They've got an interactive map showing the Lib Dems overperforming, and Labour underperforming, relative to the uniform swing. Do you know why? (purely curiosity)
It's not about wishing, I am just looking at the projected seats for each party. Sure Labour is saying no coalition now, but that will change after the election.
I'm not sure really, they sometimes say that the polls tend to under estimate the conservatives support (shy tory vote). I suppose the Lib dems might slightly over perform but they are still going to lose half their seats. It's to unpredictable to say what will happen other than no one gets a majority.
Maybe the Tories and Ukip can form a coalition when in opposition? Wouldnt change a thing but - like a good American "soccer" player - it is theoretically possible.
The tory vote is the Classic silent majority middle england vote. The heart of the country that always gets overlooked and disrespected.
It's not theoretically possible because British electoral laws don't recognize pre-electoral coalitions so it would just be a political alliance. You're literally not using words in the English language the way they were designed to be used. Either learn them, or stop using them.
That it is against the law does not mean it cannot happen. It is just not very likely. E.g. like to see an American "using" his feet to kick a ball in a way that it was designed to be kicked in a game of football.