Cycling UK Forum

I'm for a coalition of National government. Like we had during WW2. The in fighting in the current administration
has led us to this quite ridiculous impasse.

Its time to completely pull together and put party politics aside for the time being at least. The future is too precarious and the prospect of crashing out so disastrous that any single party promise should be ignored. A General election is the first step on the road to a National Coalition. We're in the most precipitously dangerous period since the war, and Tory in fighting or Labour point scoring has no place in it. After tomorrows likely tumultuous defeat i hope the current administration take heed of political precedent and step aside. For the sake at least of National unity and preservation of what have alresdy.

bovlomov wrote:

mjr wrote:The two biggest parties are currently both delusional and claiming that they will deliver the impossible all-things-to-all-people Leave, even if it seems like Labour has more democrat members supporting a People's Vote. Thanks to our pathetic antique disproportionate voting system (no longer allowed for the more democratic EU elections), a GE will leave most of the country with a horrible choice between a wasted vote and a tactical vote to rearrange the deckchairs.

I imagine all the parties will have selected their candidates by now - and the sitting MPs' candidacy will mostly be automatic.

I wonder whether we might have individual candidates campaigning on their own Brexit manifesto. Labour candidates, in particular, will have the choice between campaigning on Labour policy, and losing, or campaigning on a cancel Brexit manifesto, and having a chance of winning. Once the campaign is underway, what can the Party managers do to stop that, if the candidate has the support of the local group?

If that were to happen, we might have a parliament in which the two largest parties supported Brexit, but the MPs vote against it.

Am I right in thinking that the Conservative Party would be in the difficult position of selecting a new leader and running a general election campaign at the same time? I cannot remember all the stages involved in selecting a new Tory leader but AFAIK, if the 1922 Committee had dumped TM when the letters came in, they might still have been going through it next summer.

thirdcrank wrote:Am I right in thinking that the Conservative Party would be in the difficult position of selecting a new leader and running a general election campaign at the same time? I cannot remember all the stages involved in selecting a new Tory leader but AFAIK, if the 1922 Committee had dumped TM when the letters came in, they might still have been going through it next summer.

I hadn't thought of that. Supposing you are right, I imagine that inconvenient rules will be disposed of like other procedures standing in the way of the Conservative Party. Constitutional arsonists aren't going to worry much about bypassing a few internal party niceties. The party will do what's necessary to get a leader in place.

bovlomov wrote: ... I hadn't thought of that. Supposing you are right, I imagine that inconvenient rules will be disposed of like other procedures standing in the way of the Conservative Party. Constitutional arsonists aren't going to worry much about bypassing a few internal party niceties. The party will do what's necessary to get a leader in place.

When discussing coalitions, let's remember that the tories have always been one, be it of land owners and nouveau riche industrialists or more recently of europhiles and eurosceptics. The choice of the next leader will decide which side prevails - at least until the count after a general election.

thirdcrank wrote:When discussing coalitions, let's remember that the tories have always been one, be it of land owners and nouveau riche industrialists or more recently of europhiles and eurosceptics.

Simpler times! When arguments in the Tory Party were sorted out in a more gentlemanly way. As, for example, when Alan Clark dismissed Michael Heseltine as the sort of person who buys his own furniture. These days Tory MPs are accusing each other of treachery and threatening blood on the streets.

RickH wrote:

Mick F wrote:It was a co-operation between two individual and separate parties. Not a coalition in the slightest IMHO.

I thought that a "co-operation between two individual and separate parties" is exactly what the definition of a coalition government is.

The word coalition comes from the word coalesce, meaning to come together into one mass or whole.

What we had with the "coalition" was the Tories unable to do anything without the Liberals. It was a domination of big Tories pushing the little Liberals. Not a coalescence in sight.

Co-operation is not coalescing.

If I had my way, a majority of MPs would form a real coalition and come together with like-mindedness into one real constructive mass. Not the big boys pushing the little boys about and dictating to them.

May accused Corbyn of mere party politicking in wanting a GE. Which he is since he would have the exact same situation to deal with. But that is also what she is doing in pressing ahead with a vote that she cannot win so close to 31 March.

What we need in all long term decisions (Brexit, NHS, pensions etc) so that there is proper ownership and the next lot doesn't just reverse or sabotage is a genuine accross the house coming together of people of goodwill who can command a majority.

But I dream

Cours wrote:I'm for a coalition of National government. Like we had during WW2.

That would, of course, be the same national Government that gave rise to this:


(And if you hardline Brex**iteers are thinking of making a comparison between mainland Europe in 1938 and mainland Europe 2019 - don't even think about it!)

Mick F wrote:If I had my way, a majority of MPs would form a real coalition and come together with like-mindedness into one real constructive mass. Not the big boys pushing the little boys about and dictating to them.

Sounds suspiciously like PR. Next folk will be claiming everyone should have a voice...

One of the big planks of the Leave campaign has been to return sovereignty to our own parliament. That operates by first-past-the-post and the received wisdom has always been the this is a Good Thing because it produces Strong Governments ie not plagued with ephemeral party groupings that mean a change of government every verse end.

It looks though even before yer actual brexit, Parliament is asserting its sovereignty. So now the call is for some sort of National Government to deliver "The Will of the People."

This sort of logic was explored in Alice in Wonderland.

thirdcrank wrote:One of the big planks of the Leave campaign has been to return sovereignty to our own parliament. That operates by first-past-the-post and the received wisdom has always been the this is a Good Thing because it produces Strong Governments ie not plagued with ephemeral party groupings that mean a change of government every verse end.

It looks though even before yer actual brexit, Parliament is asserting its sovereignty. So now the call is for some sort of National Government to deliver "The Will of the People."

This sort of logic was explored in Alice in Wonderland.

Brexit and Wonderland have much in common.

The electorate laughed: "There's no use trying," they said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said Boris. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast

[with apologies to Lewis Carroll]

roubaixtuesday wrote:Brexit and Wonderland have much in common.

The electorate laughed: "There's no use trying," they said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said Boris. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast

[with apologies to Lewis Carroll]

Boris only believes in one impossible thing, and that's Boris.

Mick F wrote:The word coalition comes from the word coalesce, meaning to come together into one mass or whole.

Fair enough definition, but it excludes all(?) previously cited coalition governments: Israel, Italy, Germany, etc. In other words, your definition is at odds with the common political meaning of the term. Coalition groupings are rarely matched in numbers of representatives, and they never speak with one voice - the whole thing being kept afloat by horsetrading. I can't think of a coalition that became a 'whole'.

bovlomov wrote:

Mick F wrote:The word coalition comes from the word coalesce, meaning to come together into one mass or whole.

Fair enough definition, but it excludes all(?) previously cited coalition governments: Israel, Italy, Germany, etc. In other words, your definition is at odds with the common political meaning of the term. Coalition groupings are rarely matched in numbers of representatives, and they never speak with one voice - the whole thing being kept afloat by horsetrading. I can't think of a coalition that became a 'whole'.

Is quite correct.

(Roots of words are not relavent because words change and develop)
((It's all divertionary tatics anyway, and on this fateful day, who cares))

Is today a/the fateful day? I think not, I think referendum day was the fateful day

There shall be another great day when This Madness is resolved