User Tag List

Results 1 to 2 of 2

  1. #1
    F CK all I need is U ilikeitlikethat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    7w8 sx/so

    Default Coalition Government with Shadow Government to opose aswell!?

    The UK of GB & NI's current government, to anybody who may not have been aware, has a Deputy Prime Minister/'Vice President'/'Vice-Presidente'; not every UK government requires one.
    The current deputy prime minister is the leader of the left party, not the centre left, the left party; and the Priminister is the leader of the centre right party. . .
    The centre left, are the Shadow government... like, if you're the Education Secretary/Secretary of Education, for example, and had an election and your party lost and the new PM's/President's goverment had someone else doing your job; then you become the Shadow Dducation Secretary/Secretary of Education...
    I guess a lot of these 'little loser' parties who I fear may rise up and cieze power because of this garbage of 'little loser' I just used against them but, no one cares about their shadow goverments, so we have BOTH a coallition government, but a main shadow one too.

    So far we've had riots, I can't really blame my PM for the market or the banks or anything that the housing and credit market did under President Bush Jnr in America... So, IDK, hope the Euro doesn't crash.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    I'm a little unsure what this thread is about but I wanted to point out a couple of things.

    The equivalent of the president in the UK is the monarchy, these are figureheads, in the UK the figure head is in theory apolitical or at least not partisan as the president of the united states is. The vice president in the US instance is elected and is sworn in as office holder if the president is killed, in the UK the "vice president" would be the next in line for the throne who would be crowned in the event of a natural death or assasination.

    The government in the US is the senate, which is divided into upper and lower houses, the UK has the parliament and it is similarly divided into lower and upper houses, unlike the US only the lower house, the "commons" is elected, the upper house, the house of lords is appointed and titles are inherited. The Prime Minister is not a presidential position, some prime ministers are more leaders than others, some make decisions in committee and share responsibilities with their department heads, ie minister for education. The opposition can mirror those positions, ie shadowing, its only a matter of having commentators and a certain division of labour so politicians can be authorities on their own individual areas of interest.

    The present government in the UK is a coalition, it was formed by groups of politicians reached enough of an agreement to occupy more of the government benches than the opposition. Coalitions in the UK have existed before, with the liberals and labour parties entering into coalition historically, but they are effectively unelected, often unelectable as they have never gone to the public and been elected as a coalition but have been elected on the basis of their seperate election manifestos or platforms.

    Whether or not any political party delivers on election promises is up to politicians themselves and they often act on the basis of what they think will be the electorates memory or responsiveness, the Liberal co-PM has demonstrated that he doesnt care about the electorate at the moment, he's scoffed at the amount of times he has betrayed his election mandate lots. Lots and lots.

    I personally think that after Tony Blair's "new labour" game changer UK politics hasnt been typified by left and right wing divisions at all but by different groups of political managers, it is why there has been some of the more blatant disrespect of the electorate and traditional partisan voting blocks.

    I definitely would not have said that the liberals were ever a left wing party, the confusion arises here because disaffected traditional labour voters switched their votes to the liberals prior to the coalition, however the liberal party did produce a manifesto called the "orange book" and it was a right wing, capitalist, radical libertarian manifesto. A lot of the cuts, some of the really radical ones such as the police, have had their origins here.

    The conservatives I am unsure are really right wing, they have jettisoned most of the traditionalist planks of their belief system, for instance corporal punishment, capital punishment, robust policing and criminal justice policies and heteronormativity. Those things are too expensive now so they've gone and been replaced with whatever will make for cheaper government and cutting taxes for the rich, of which most of the present conversative government are very good examples.

    Labour has been totally and utterly moot, they dont just appear irrelevent at a time when the conservative press is being wrung through the mill and serious financial corruption heavily tied into government is being exposed, which should be their greatest opportunity, they are totally non-entities and dont appear in the press or on TV at all. The closest thing to opposition, people pointing out the most ugly things about the coalition are actually conservative or liberal back benchers.

    I really dont believe that any minority political factions will ever amount to anything. They themselves have said that they only hope to compell changes in the policies of the bigger parties.

    The government can be blamed for what has happened and is continuing to happen in the markets, the decision to have a parliamentary rather than a judicial enquiry into the bankers committing fraud on a grand scale for instance, this was effectively the government deciding that there would be no legal liability or penalty for this behaviour when the investigation reports back. Politicians depend on the public believing that they have nothing to do with the markets or banks in order to get re-elected but to be honest if governments are going to be so ineffectual why elect them in the first place?
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

Similar Threads

  1. BULLYING: Personality type with a tendency to bully others? Type of the victims?
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 262
    Last Post: 09-15-2016, 11:07 AM
  2. NZ government to bar certain Types from becoming teachers.
    By Quinlan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-27-2011, 02:10 PM
  3. Can anyone identify with or relate to this passage?
    By WithoutaFace in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 10:05 PM
  4. using shadow patterns to determine type
    By Grayscale in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-18-2009, 07:48 PM
  5. Government to own 50% of GM, unions 39%
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-29-2009, 02:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO