The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Iceland: Who need's government anyways?
Drakeon
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
REYKJAVIK, Iceland - Iceland's coalition government collapsed Monday, leaving the island nation in political turmoil amid a financial crisis that has pummeled its economy and required an international bailout.
Prime Minister Geir Haarde said he was unwilling to meet the demands of his coalition partners, the Social Democratic Alliance Party, which insisted upon getting the post of prime minister to keep the coalition intact.
"I really regret that we could not continue with this coalition, I believe that that would have been the best result," Haarde told reporters.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Haarde, who has been prime minister since 2006, said he would officially inform the country's president, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, that the government had collapsed. Grimsson, largely a figurehead, has asked Haarde's government to remain in place until a new administration is formed.
Last week, Haarde called elections for May — bringing forward a contest originally slated for 2011 after weeks of protests by Icelanders upset about soaring unemployment and rising prices.
But Haarde said he wouldn't lead his Independence Party into the new elections because he needs treatment for cancer.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28854529/
So, this is pretty scary. I don't know the last time I saw a western nation collapse like this on it's own.
PSN: Drakieon XBL: Drakieon Steam: TheDrakeon
Drakeon on
0
Posts
Well, I suppose that explains their banks collapsing >_>
Are all banks this stupid? I mean, it seems everywhere that's going through financial problems is due to banks fucking up.
It's not like a dozen different packs of 4th graders picking up their ball and going home. Unless everyone just vacated the government en masse, this just doesn't work.
What the hell am I missing here?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It isn't a two party system.
I mean, yes, it sounds bad, but it also sounds like Iceland's government has systems in place to replace itself in such an event. I'm from America, so I don't know anything about parliamentary systems, but don't most parliamentary countries account for such contingencies anyway?
I can see "can't come to terms" or "parliament stalled" but "government gone" isn't something that happens in the first world.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yeah, in this case, the government was a coalition of at least 2 parties who joined in order to form a majority. The parties in the coalition are no longer co-operating, so the government falls and an election is supposed to be held. Or possibly, another coalition could form? Not sure about the Icelandic system.
Something like this could happen in Canada if the current minority government of the Conservative party falls to a possible coalition of the opposition parties. I don't see the opposition maintaining co-operation for long, so the government would fall and an election would be held.
Canada's economy is doing okay compared to the rest of the world, so it wouldn't cause a crisis like in Iceland, but it would suck.
I'm not sure how I see this as a 'western democracy collapsing' though. It's just a bad time for the parties to get up in each others' grills.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
The "government" as we use that word in the states did not dissapear. Iceland still exists, both as a geographic place and as a geopolitical entity.
But the coalition has been broken, which basically just means fuck-all is going to get done until a new coalition is formed (that is, until two parties decide to agree on stuff and become the new "the government")
From what I'm gathering around the tubes, this is a case of the parties who had allied to form a majority (an this is where the multi-party thing comes in, see I can learn) basically had enough of each other and are going through a Rom Com level bad breakup.
"Fuck you, I quit."
"You can't quit, I quit."
"Fuck all of you, I quit first."
*sound of stereo falling into parkinglot*
Makes the theatrics here in the states seem positively civil.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Pretty much, its just a) Icelandic banks were extra stupid*, and b) Iceland's economy is too small to absorb the subsequent implosion.
*Due to the tiny nature of country allowing just a few banks to wield considerable influence over...everything really.
I disagree.
Why's that? There's lots of >2 party systems out there.
Because I'm totally cool with that.
Then you are alone in those sentiments.
Also, EVE Online is pretty much going to be fucked as a result of this. Aren't they based in Ice Land?
What I'm taking away from this is, if you're lagging behind other countries as far as economic and technological progress, but are perfectly happy regardless, resist the urge to tinker.
My opinion here is about Proportional Representation multiparty systems. To me, it seems very clear, that having two opposing parties coalesce into one body in order to rule would clearly add more strife between the two parties that are all mashed into one. This will in turn make one of the groups in the coalition government more likely to want to use their power, aka the possibility of leaving the coalition and destroying the government, to get what they want. If you don't give it to them, bam, no more majority party.
Not all multiparty systems collapse, but it seems reasonable to assume they are more prone to collapse than a two party system.
Only IF there's a coalition. Canada, for example, hasn't had a coalition government since 1917. And that's assuming that your assumption is even correct, which I'm not convinced it is.
Pretty much all that happens when a coalition falls is a snap election is called. In the US elections run for like, two years. Canada had one start in finish in a couple months. It's hardly leaving the nation without leadership.
In any case, in most parliamentary systems, a "failing government" is built into the system. When the government loses a vote of confidence (in a British-style system, any vote can be declared a matter of confidence), the PM resigns, and new elections are held. Yes, this makes it easier to bring down a government, but at the same time, it creates a big incentive for dealmaking (because people don't like bringing down the government). If we'd had a similar system in the U.S., Dubya would have been out on his ass two years ago (which I'm not saying makes the system inherently superior to the U.S. system; I'm just saying it has certain advantages).
I believe that if we split our two parties into four as your question suggests, that whichever party was actually in the #1 position, the labor unionists, would be trying much harder to push their agenda and would be more prone to spurning the environmentalists, which they require to ensure that it doesn't collapse.
Exactly. That would never happen.
Religious folks and low-tax folks working together? Psh. May as well add "pro-war ideologues" in there for extra zany.
Out of pure misery, a temporary government was formed for a few months then, before power was handed over to an unstable mess of everyone who ever wanted to do politics. Except for the socialists.
For a couple of months, nothing whatsoever got done, banks started crashing right and left, and now the prime minister has resigned again.
And really, us Belgians stopped caring about a year ago. Nothing much has changed, and we're still sort of just moving along... existing.
Yeesh, I thought something noteworthy had actually happened.
You'd think the capitol building had been burned down by the OP title or something.
Thank God for that.
8-)
what with our government being defined as the executive, and not a parliamentary coalition.
Of course people like the editors of the NYT and whoever wrote the OP should know these things.
I think most Americans define Government to mean The Constitution and everything that has spawned from it. Whereas most definitions of the word are more inline with current people in charge of governing, the current body politic.
Your administration is really the Executive and in parliamentary governments, the Executive is basically equal to the Prime Minister (and his office). The 'government' is the parliament itself which would be the legislative body, with the Prime Minister usually there with his party. It runs the country, passing the laws, housing the bureaucracy, etc.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.