UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[dribbles]

The government has not collapsed.

Because it hasn't even been set up? weeks and weeks after the election? If you have no government I guess its true, it cant collapse, it doesn't exist.

[JohnBrown1917]

Because it hasn't even been set up? weeks and weeks after the election? If you have no government I guess its true, it cant collapse, it doesn't exist.

Again, we do have a government, Rutte II

[Deleted]

But it does.

No it isn't.
The reason Belgium is ungovernable is because its a poorly constituted federation.
Imagine if England, Scotland, NI, Wales, + another one, all were roughly the same size, spoke different languages, and they all had Veto.
No matter the electoral system, it would be shit.

You see when the British criticize the dictatorial EU and its nations as unelected and undemocratic it is because half the time no country within the EU has functioning governance.

The definition of a democracy is that the government is elected by the people - not that it's stable, or functioning.
36% of the people electing the leader doesn't make it a democracy, not matter how fucking stable or functioning it is, because those are not metrics by which one evaluates a democratic system.

[dribbles]

Again, we do have a government, Rutte II

He has no mandate to provide leadership. Name the parties who form the Dutch grand coalition that give Rutte the authority to claim leadership of Holland. You can't because no such coalition exists, Rutte has no authority to lead Holland, unless he talks and works with wilders, which he won't.

Weeks and weeks and weeks after your election. Democracy? Recipe for anarchy more like....should have gone fptp

No it isn't.
The reason Belgium is ungovernable is because its a poorly constituted federation.

I'll change that for you and thanks!

The reason Europe is ungovernable is because its a poorly constituted federation.

[Zarc]

But it does.

The premier democratic British system = Election on day 1, leadership of country decided by day 2.
Dutch/Belgian/EU undemocratic system = Election on day 1, leadership of country decided by maybe in a few months, maybe a couple of years, maybe never.

You see when the British criticize the dictatorial EU and its nations as unelected and undemocratic it is because half the time no country within the EU has functioning governance.

And still so many people rubbishing the fptp system and yet unable to come up with an alternative system that works. Fptp might be imperfect in some ways, but all the others are unworkable.

Looks like the Austrian government is about to fail too,

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...lition-teeters

Stupid euros, stupid electoral system.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

In 2010, 23% voted for the LibDems to represent them, yet they didn't get properly represented because the LibDems only got 8% of the seats because of your shitty system. Now THAT is undemocratic. Only 36% voted for the Tories, yet they got almost half of the seats. 52% voted for the center-left (Labour+LibDems), but the center-left didn't get to govern because their combined share of seats was not in the majority, even though a majority voted for them. Incredibly undemocratic. Instead LibDems ended up governing with the Conservatives in a coalition where the Conservatives had undue influence compared to how many people actually voted for them.

As much as I loathe them, the UKIP got almost 13% in 2015 and had 0.2% of seats to show for it. What kind of stupid electoral system is that?

The only argument for the British system would be that it much more easily results in single-party majority governments, thus giving them a pass on having to compromise with the opinion's of others due to an undemocratic system where you can get a majority even though you only had the support of about a third of the electorate. So yeah, the chance that you have a government on day 2 are much greater. Congratulations. But it's much less democratic, obviously. There's just no argument there.

Proportional representation is much better, and much more workable. Look at Germany. Look at Denmark. Look at Sweden. Look at Norway. Look at Iceland. Look at Finland. And also look at the Netherlands. Belgium a couple of years ago was an outlandish example, but then they still had their Walloon and Flemish governments that does a lot of the governance anyways since they are a federal state. Who cares that the new government doesn't enter into power on day 2? Democratic representation should be more important than some arbitrary timetable. In the United States there's a period of 2 months before the new administration is installed after it has been elected. Why does the new government have to be installed 1 day after an election? Why not 2 months after? It's going to govern for 4 years, and it will be allowed to do so for another 2 months after another has been elected so it gets to play by the same rules as any other.

[JohnBrown1917]

He has no mandate to provide leadership. Name the parties who form the Dutch grand coalition that give Rutte the authority to claim leadership of Holland. You can't because no such coalition exists, Rutte has no authority to lead Holland, unless he talks and works with wilders, which he won't.

Weeks and weeks and weeks after your election. Democracy? Recipe for anarchy more like....should have gone fptp

I keep telling you, you have no idea what an anarchy is or how our system works.

[Huehuecoyotl]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

In 2010, 23% voted for the LibDems to represent them, yet they didn't get properly represented because the LibDems only got 8% of the seats because of your shitty system. Now THAT is undemocratic. Only 36% voted for the Tories, yet they got almost half of the seats. 52% voted for the center-left (Labour+LibDems), but the center-left didn't get to govern because their combined share of seats was not in the majority, even though a majority voted for them. Incredibly undemocratic. Instead LibDems ended up governing with the Conservatives in a coalition where the Conservatives had undue influence compared to how many people actually voted for them.

As much as I loathe them, the UKIP got almost 13% in 2015 and had 0.2% of seats to show for it. What kind of stupid electoral system is that?

The only argument for the British system would be that it much more easily results in single-party majority governments, thus giving them a pass on having to compromise with the opinion's of others due to an undemocratic system where you can get a majority even though you only had the support of about a third of the electorate. So yeah, the chance that you have a government on day 2 are much greater. Congratulations. But it's much less democratic, obviously. There's just no argument there.

Proportional representation is much better, and much more workable. Look at Germany. Look at Denmark. Look at Sweden. Look at Norway. Look at Iceland. Look at Finland. And also look at the Netherlands. Belgium a couple of years ago was an outlandish example, but then they still had their Walloon and Flemish governments that does a lot of the governance anyways since they are a federal state. Who cares that the new government doesn't enter into power on day 2? Democratic representation should be more important than some arbitrary timetable. In the United States there's a period of 2 months before the new administration is installed after it has been elected. Why does the new government have to be installed 1 day after an election? Why not 2 months after? It's going to govern for 4 years, and it will be allowed to do so for another 2 months after another has been elected so it gets to play by the same rules as any other.

The British system was designed to do one thing, and one thing only. Cement power in the hands of the two major parties, and make it virtually impossible for anyone else to ever gather a significant amount of representation. It is nothing to do with extremist parties, it is purely about stopping anyone else getting a look in. And since then we haven't had a single party in power on either side that represented a majority of the electorate.

And when we did have a chance to vote on a watered down version of PR, all the supporters of the two parties (and the media) came out against it, because they were terrified it would undermine their death grip on the political future of the country. Which guaranteed that it couldn't pass.

You can't have a referendum on PR, it has to be imposed. Otherwise we are going to go on with the 60% of the electorate ensuring that they are represented about half the time each, while the 40% never are at all. Which drives people away from the political process, cementing the power of the two parties even more. Which is the point, of course.

[Slant]

I'm sure making it easy for 1 party to gain a majority, without 50% of the votes, has it benefits, just look at all the amazing things tories are doing!

I see how the problem of implementing an effective leadership is solved by their system. But there are other ways to do it. More elegant ways that reflect the will of the voters better.

[Zarc]

He has no mandate to provide leadership. Name the parties who form the Dutch grand coalition that give Rutte the authority to claim leadership of Holland. You can't because no such coalition exists, Rutte has no authority to lead Holland, unless he talks and works with wilders, which he won't.

Weeks and weeks and weeks after your election. Democracy? Recipe for anarchy more like....should have gone fptp.

But he does have a mandate. He is the most recently elected Prime Minister, that's his mandate. Until a new Prime Minister is elected by the democratically elected representatives of parliament his mandate remains. The representatives elect the Prime Minister. The people elect the representatives. Just as in any parliamentary system, the UK among them.

On the 15th of March the people elected their representatives to the parliament and gave each of them a mandate to represent them for 4 years. That includes the power to elect a new Prime Minister at any time through the next Parliament. Just as the Conservatives in the UK elected Theresa May years after the last election. Once a Prime Minister is elected he has the mandate to govern until a majority of the representatives vote for somebody else. The newly elected Parliament can choose to do so at any time, now, a month from now or 2 years from now. That's parliamentary democracy. Naturally they're gonna spend some time working out some compromises, then a majority will take shape that will elect a new Prime Minister. Or as is more likely in this case, the old Prime Minister will continue on with a new political agenda forged by a new coalition of parties than the previous one. Parliamentary democracy.

[dribbles]

But he does have a mandate. He is the most recently elected Prime Minister, that's his mandate. Until a new Prime Minister is elected by the democratically elected representatives of parliament his mandate remains. The representatives elect the Prime Minister. The people elect the representatives. Just as in any parliamentary system, the UK among them.

On the 15th of March the people elected their representatives to the parliament and gave each of them a mandate to represent them for 4 years. That includes the power to elect a new Prime Minister at any time through the next Parliament. Just as the Conservatives in the UK elected Theresa May years after the last election. Once a Prime Minister is elected he has the mandate to govern until a majority of the representatives vote for somebody else. The newly elected Parliament can choose to do so at any time, now, a month from now or 2 years from now. That's parliamentary democracy. Naturally they're gonna spend some time working out some compromises, then a majority will take shape that will elect a new Prime Minister. Or as is more likely in this case, the old Prime Minister will continue on with a new political agenda forged by a new coalition of parties than the previous one. Parliamentary democracy.

Can Rutte pass any new legislation in the Dutch parliament? Amend any existing? No he is not a Prime Minister, with only 30 ish seats in the 150 seat house he is an Impotent Minister. Hypothetically if all the little parties, and who knows how bad this seasons immigrant crisis will be by the time the Dutch do have a PM, sided with Wilders he would be the PM. The Dutch currently are rudderless - they wouldn't be if they had used the superior fptp.

[JohnBrown1917]

Can Rutte pass any new legislation in the Dutch parliament? Amend any existing? No he is not a Prime Minister, with only 30 ish seats in the 150 seat house he is an Impotent Minister. Hypothetically if all the little parties, and who knows how bad this seasons immigrant crisis will be by the time the Dutch do have a PM, sided with Wilders he would be the PM. The Dutch currently are rudderless - they wouldn't be if they had used the superior fptp.

We don't need to pass legislation for the sake of legislation. It can still pass with majority support, and it can wait till we have a coalition the majority of the Dutch support.
The minority ruling the majority? No thanks.



p.s
Rutte II has 42 seats.

- - - Updated - - -

But he does have a mandate. He is the most recently elected Prime Minister, that's his mandate. Until a new Prime Minister is elected by the democratically elected representatives of parliament his mandate remains. The representatives elect the Prime Minister. The people elect the representatives. Just as in any parliamentary system, the UK among them.

On the 15th of March the people elected their representatives to the parliament and gave each of them a mandate to represent them for 4 years. That includes the power to elect a new Prime Minister at any time through the next Parliament. Just as the Conservatives in the UK elected Theresa May years after the last election. Once a Prime Minister is elected he has the mandate to govern until a majority of the representatives vote for somebody else. The newly elected Parliament can choose to do so at any time, now, a month from now or 2 years from now. That's parliamentary democracy. Naturally they're gonna spend some time working out some compromises, then a majority will take shape that will elect a new Prime Minister. Or as is more likely in this case, the old Prime Minister will continue on with a new political agenda forged by a new coalition of parties than the previous one. Parliamentary democracy.

Explained it way better than I could, or maybe i'm just lazy.

[Deleted]

Can Rutte pass any new legislation in the Dutch parliament? Amend any existing? No he is not a Prime Minister, with only 30 ish seats in the 150 seat house he is an Impotent Minister. Hypothetically if all the little parties, and who knows how bad this seasons immigrant crisis will be by the time the Dutch do have a PM, sided with Wilders he would be the PM. The Dutch currently are rudderless - they wouldn't be if they had used the superior fptp.

Hypothetically, yes. The chance of ALL little parties going together with Wilders is... not a chance. The Dutch are generally reasonable enough not to vote for politicians with tendencies to stick parts of their bodies in pig's heads, leather trousers or Trump's golden plated lift.

I'm not saying Theresa May hasn't got a massive chance of winning the election, but, she's getting mighty paranoid about the situation - saying that everyone will unite against her in one, single voice. The fact that she, a (allegedly) trained and experienced politician thinks that's going to happen, is disturbing.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes, nearly all Parties excluded Wilders. the VVD even ran on a platform that voting for them would keep out Wilders. Not to mention, we have other ways to form a coalition without Rutte, but the Christian dems want nothing of that, so anything with the VVD/CDA/D66 is not going to happen, unless Bruma gets really power hungry.


Ontop of that, Wilders himself also excluded all left wing parties and D66. The coalition proposal of him and the FvD is the most bonkers i've ever seen in this system.

[Deleted]

Can Rutte pass any new legislation in the Dutch parliament? Amend any existing? No he is not a Prime Minister, with only 30 ish seats in the 150 seat house he is an Impotent Minister. Hypothetically if all the little parties, and who knows how bad this seasons immigrant crisis will be by the time the Dutch do have a PM, sided with Wilders he would be the PM. The Dutch currently are rudderless - they wouldn't be if they had used the superior fptp.

You know an even better system does away with elections outright, dictatorships are very stable and strong.


- - - Updated - - -

Hypothetically, yes. The chance of ALL little parties going together with Wilders is... not a chance. The Dutch are generally reasonable enough not to vote for politicians with tendencies to stick parts of their bodies in pig's heads, leather trousers or Trump's golden plated lift.

I'm not saying Theresa May hasn't got a massive chance of winning the election, but, she's getting mighty paranoid about the situation - saying that everyone will unite against her in one, single voice. The fact that she, a (allegedly) trained and experienced politician thinks that's going to happen, is disturbing.

Yeah that's disturbing indeed - The arithmetic requires Sin fein to take their seats (something they don't do) and vote together with the DUP.
That's Disturbing.

[Deleted]

You know an even better system does away with elections outright, dictatorships are very stable and strong.


- - - Updated - - -



Yeah that's disturbing indeed - The arithmetic requires Sin fein to take their seats (something they don't do) and vote together with the DUP.
That's Disturbing.

Yup. It's the whole 'getting a strong mandate' thing all over again. She lacks the charisma to be able to get other parties to agree with Tory ideas, or the balls to be able to propose things that she isn't 100% sure will pass. Just look at the Hammond situation.

I wouldn't say that I'd be ecstatic about Corbyn as PM (which is also very, very unlikely), but he seems to be picking his shit up, and so are Labour in general. Though, judging by what's been going on in later years, I am pretty sure Corbyn has single-handedly killed the dogs of every editor-in-chief of every newspaper in the UK, so he's not so much fighting an uphill battle as he is scaling a wall with two hands tied behind his back.

[dribbles]

You know an even better system does away with elections outright, dictatorships are very stable and strong.

There is something in what you say, even North Korea through an extreme version of fptp has a more effective government currently than the Dutch.

However as a Briton sitting here in a mature democracy in Western Europe, it's very easy to laugh at countries from Eastern Europe, like Belgium, Holland, Austria, Sweden, Germany etc etc as they learn from mistakes along their journey to true freedom.

When they do reach the level of British democracy hopefully their governments finally recognise and trust that their citizens are ready for an in/out EU referendum.

Good luck!

[Mayhem]

The British government is perhaps the least democratic of all. You literally have an entire part of your political system being an exclusive club only rich people are allowed to buy into.

I suggest people just report this clown for what very obviously is just a bunch of trolling.

Please don't, his posts are way too entertaining.

[draykorinee]

Yeah, let's not mention the house of lords...If dribbles thinks that's a good political system them he's got serous issues.

[JohnBrown1917]

There is something in what you say, even North Korea through an extreme version of fptp has a more effective government currently than the Dutch.

You really have something against the Dutch, don't you?

[Deleted]

You really have something against the Dutch, don't you?

You are just jealous of the superior North English democracy.