Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Too many parties... | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:44:06 11/30/04 Tue In reply to: Paddy (Scotland) 's message, "MPs by party" on 20:24:52 11/30/04 Tue I believe strongly that one of the greatest impediments to a settlement in Ulster arises from the fact that Ulstermen can not vote for any party which is likely to form a government. Were it simply accepted that the referenda in Ulster clearly show that Ulster has decided to be part of the UK, then people would not have to vote for single-issue parties (Unionist or Seperatist) and the British party system could be extended to Ulster, with people voting Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem, with the token party for nationalists like SNP in Scotland. As a result, I think that no Commonwealth Federation could possibly work if there be different political parties in each of the 'former' realms. This is especially true since, apart from in exceptional circumstances, a British majority could out-vote pretty much anything that the rest of CANZUK might have to offer, even if the British majority was that of a party which did not put forward any candidates in the rest of CANZUK. Alliances might be a solution, but that means coalitions, and, as the chap said, "England does not love coalitions." Look at Europe - every government is a coalition of about seventeen parties and they always fall apart. Italy has had almost fifty general elections since the War. Moreover, in a coalition the smallest party controls the balance of power, and therefore the party for which fewest people voted is the most influential - like Joerg Haider's ultra-right-wing party in Austria. Since the end of patronage in the 19th Century, political parties are the only thing which hold the legislative and executive in balance. Moreover, they are qunitessetial to the maintenance of a unitary state. The emergence of a Federal Commonwealth parliament must be concomitant with the emergence of pan-CANZUK political parties, or the thing will be completely dysfunctional. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes, clearly there are too many parties | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:20:10 11/30/04 Tue But I think they would settle down reasonably swiftly into 3 or 4 serious ones and a lot of little ones. The continued existence of separate parties along existing national lines would mean complete failure of the federation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: There is a large nuber of parties... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:28:31 12/01/04 Wed I agree that they would form alliances so as to give a clear "government", a clear "opposition", probably a third-running, minority extremist left (like the Lib Dems in the U.K.) party and then the other protest votes. Out of interest, what are the BQ's policies in Canada? They hold 54 out of about 75-80 Quebec seats, the remainder are held by the Conservatives I believe... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |