I found the whole thing fascinating too! It's a bit strange to see people so worried about a coalition though as it's done so often in other countries (including here.) The thing that seems weird to me is the mix of right-of-centre and left-of centre parties. We'll see how it works out though, for now I'm willing to believe it can work but that could have to do with that hilarious harden press conference. ;) (Obviously, it's really nothing to do with me but I'm interested and I'll be watching. :P)
I don't like David Cameron and if I lived in the UK I'd most likely never vote Conservative either but I do see how the Lab/Lib coalition would have brought about a lot of problems. Technically, it was a legitimate one seeing as it's a parliamentary system and Lab + Lib-Dem do have more MPs than the Tories but, really, that's not how things are perceived by the public/media and, obviously, if they went to the trouble of having three Leaders Debates, this was all being played on the Brown/Cameron/Clegg level from the start. People do vote for individual MPs but they also base their vote on who they want as a PM. And, tying in with what you say about unelected PM's, after the dismal popularity Gordon Brown enjoyed, it seems to me another unelected PM wouldn't make things any better.
So yeah, what I mean is: personally I think a Lab/Lib coalition would have been better as I identify with their views a whole lot more but that would have brought about a lot of problems for the two parties (as a lot of people from the Labour party argued on Monday-- was it Monday? :P -- when that became a possibility) and could end up also bringing about an unstable government. So I think this is really the best way things could have gone given the result of the election. (Clegg could have also let Cameron go it alone but then everyone would be angry at him for what would be perceived as choosing the good of his party over the good of the country.)
Wow, that got long. I wonder why I care more about foreign politics than national, hmm. I guess there's always more drama in yours. ;)
I'm delighted you find our politics so interesting!:) It isn't usually-most of the time it swings from left to right and back again every few years. This is very different for us!
Unfortunately, I know shamefully little about Portuguese politics. My sincere apologies for that, but I'd like to learn if you'd like to tell me about it.
As far as I'm concerned, Margaret Thatcher's put me off the Conservative Party ad its leaders for life! David Cameron may be a very nice man for all I know-and I did feel sorry for him and his wife when their young son died-but he just comes across as a typical Tory politician. I'm probably not being entirely fair because Nick Clegg's had almost exactly the same privileged upbringing/education and I don't really hold that against him!
Even though a Lib/Lab coalition would just about have had more seats than the Conservatives, it would still have been short of the 326 required for an overall majority. It would have needed the help of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the one Green Party MP as well. That's a lot of different groups to keep on side at once! Especially by a party that's going through a leadership election.
I don't like David Cameron and if I lived in the UK I'd most likely never vote Conservative either but I do see how the Lab/Lib coalition would have brought about a lot of problems. Technically, it was a legitimate one seeing as it's a parliamentary system and Lab + Lib-Dem do have more MPs than the Tories but, really, that's not how things are perceived by the public/media and, obviously, if they went to the trouble of having three Leaders Debates, this was all being played on the Brown/Cameron/Clegg level from the start. People do vote for individual MPs but they also base their vote on who they want as a PM. And, tying in with what you say about unelected PM's, after the dismal popularity Gordon Brown enjoyed, it seems to me another unelected PM wouldn't make things any better.
So yeah, what I mean is: personally I think a Lab/Lib coalition would have been better as I identify with their views a whole lot more but that would have brought about a lot of problems for the two parties (as a lot of people from the Labour party argued on Monday-- was it Monday? :P -- when that became a possibility) and could end up also bringing about an unstable government. So I think this is really the best way things could have gone given the result of the election. (Clegg could have also let Cameron go it alone but then everyone would be angry at him for what would be perceived as choosing the good of his party over the good of the country.)
Wow, that got long. I wonder why I care more about foreign politics than national, hmm. I guess there's always more drama in yours. ;)
Reply
Unfortunately, I know shamefully little about Portuguese politics. My sincere apologies for that, but I'd like to learn if you'd like to tell me about it.
As far as I'm concerned, Margaret Thatcher's put me off the Conservative Party ad its leaders for life! David Cameron may be a very nice man for all I know-and I did feel sorry for him and his wife when their young son died-but he just comes across as a typical Tory politician. I'm probably not being entirely fair because Nick Clegg's had almost exactly the same privileged upbringing/education and I don't really hold that against him!
Even though a Lib/Lab coalition would just about have had more seats than the Conservatives, it would still have been short of the 326 required for an overall majority. It would have needed the help of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the one Green Party MP as well. That's a lot of different groups to keep on side at once! Especially by a party that's going through a leadership election.
Reply
Leave a comment