As a resident of the UK I'm still not entirely convinced that holding a series of elections to decide who you get to vote for in another election isn't either an elaborate practical joke or a barefaced attempt to have one thing on the news for 2 years running.
I've watched Yes, Prime Minister a few times so I think I have a vague understanding of how the UK system works, but maybe I don't so let me run it by you.
My understanding is that the prime minister is not elected separately from the parliament in the way that the US president is elected separately from congress, but is chosen by the party or coalition of parties that hold the majority in parliament. People only vote directly for their representatives in parliament. And while prime minister has similar powers and responsibilities to the US president of being in charge of the military, the government bureaucracy, diplomacy, and enacting the legislation the parliament/congress passes, the PM doesn't have any veto power over legislation and the parliament can replace them whenever it wants to.
Does that sound right?
Yes, apart from where the PM doesn't have veto powers and can be replaced whenever. Technically this is true, the PM is primus inter pares, first amongst equals, with no more power than anyone else. In practical terms, a PM with support of the party (bearing in mind that support from the party doesn't mean support from MPs in the party, one of our two main parties is currently led by someone who is there because of the base rather than other MPs) has a vast amount of power within the government, because the whole basis for who gets to be in charge is who can (assuming the party whips keep everyone in line) get a vote through the Commons without needing the support of any other party.
I don't think multiple elections is a fair characterization. It's just that instead of a bunch of fifty year old men in a backroom deciding who the next nominee is going to be while watching game of thrones, you have an entire nation watching game of thrones and deciding who the next nominee of their party is going to be. This results in more populist candidates, more positional drift, and most importantly more HBO subscriptions.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
0
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
As a resident of the UK I'm still not entirely convinced that holding a series of elections to decide who you get to vote for in another election isn't either an elaborate practical joke or a barefaced attempt to have one thing on the news for 2 years running.
I've watched Yes, Prime Minister a few times so I think I have a vague understanding of how the UK system works, but maybe I don't so let me run it by you.
My understanding is that the prime minister is not elected separately from the parliament in the way that the US president is elected separately from congress, but is chosen by the party or coalition of parties that hold the majority in parliament. People only vote directly for their representatives in parliament. And while prime minister has similar powers and responsibilities to the US president of being in charge of the military, the government bureaucracy, diplomacy, and enacting the legislation the parliament/congress passes, the PM doesn't have any veto power over legislation and the parliament can replace them whenever it wants to.
Does that sound right?
Yes, apart from where the PM doesn't have veto powers and can be replaced whenever. Technically this is true, the PM is primus inter pares, first amongst equals, with no more power than anyone else. In practical terms, a PM with support of the party (bearing in mind that support from the party doesn't mean support from MPs in the party, one of our two main parties is currently led by someone who is there because of the base rather than other MPs) has a vast amount of power within the government, because the whole basis for who gets to be in charge is who can (assuming the party whips keep everyone in line) get a vote through the Commons without needing the support of any other party.
so the PM can't be replaced whenever? or are you saying that in practice they are only replaced when their faction loses control of the parliament? I had the impression they could also be changed when their party was unhappy with them or their performance. Also does the PM have some kind of actual veto powers or are you saying they wouldn't want to veto anything because their faction is necessarily the one in control of the legislature?
Generally they are only replaced when their party looses an election or they quit. I can only remember a single PM changing without an election in my lifetime and that was when Tony Blair quit and handed the job to Gordon Brown. Even that should have triggered an election imo, but that's besides the point.
As to the vetos, it's the latter situation, they don't need vetos because they have a controlling share of the legislature by the very nature of their position as leader of the party with a majority of the seats.
As a resident of the UK I'm still not entirely convinced that holding a series of elections to decide who you get to vote for in another election isn't either an elaborate practical joke or a barefaced attempt to have one thing on the news for 2 years running.
I've watched Yes, Prime Minister a few times so I think I have a vague understanding of how the UK system works, but maybe I don't so let me run it by you.
My understanding is that the prime minister is not elected separately from the parliament in the way that the US president is elected separately from congress, but is chosen by the party or coalition of parties that hold the majority in parliament. People only vote directly for their representatives in parliament. And while prime minister has similar powers and responsibilities to the US president of being in charge of the military, the government bureaucracy, diplomacy, and enacting the legislation the parliament/congress passes, the PM doesn't have any veto power over legislation and the parliament can replace them whenever it wants to.
Does that sound right?
Yes, apart from where the PM doesn't have veto powers and can be replaced whenever. Technically this is true, the PM is primus inter pares, first amongst equals, with no more power than anyone else. In practical terms, a PM with support of the party (bearing in mind that support from the party doesn't mean support from MPs in the party, one of our two main parties is currently led by someone who is there because of the base rather than other MPs) has a vast amount of power within the government, because the whole basis for who gets to be in charge is who can (assuming the party whips keep everyone in line) get a vote through the Commons without needing the support of any other party.
so the PM can't be replaced whenever? or are you saying that in practice they are only replaced when their faction loses control of the parliament? I had the impression they could also be changed when their party was unhappy with them or their performance. Also does the PM have some kind of actual veto powers or are you saying they wouldn't want to veto anything because their faction is necessarily the one in control of the legislature?
The PM's power comes from being the head of the party who has the ability to form the government (i.e. pass a vote through the Commons without caring what other parties want), and has therefore been asked to do so (purely as a formality) by the Queen. If the PM retains control of the party then the PM is essentially unassailable and as long as the party MPs vote along with the PM then they can pass any laws they want (as the second house is entirely defeatable by the first house, and we have no actual real constitution which protects certain laws or requires certain criteria to change them). Of course, if the PM loses the support of their party then it's the opposite way entirely, they can be unceremoniously shuffled off.
Prime Minister is not actually really an official role in the same way the President is a constitutionally assigned position. It basically means the boss of the party who has the most commons seats, as chosen by said party internally.
the Tony Blair thing is specifically what was making me think the PM getting replaced at any random time was a thing, and the general feeling that "retiring" in politics is often code for "my party fired me."
What do you mean by saying that should have triggered an election?
It means he thinks that the Labour government should have called an election because the basis on which the last election was won was Tony Blair as PM, and he wasn't any more
And it's a fair point to make! It's also entirely a personal opinion one what they should have voluntarily done, as there's no requirement to do it at all. The party could change PM every day if they wanted and could get elected.
the Tony Blair thing is specifically what was making me think the PM getting replaced at any random time was a thing, and the general feeling that "retiring" in politics is often code for "my party fired me."
What do you mean by saying that should have triggered an election?
It's just a personal thing really, that the change of personality at the top would (and did) affect the priorities of the government going forward, to better align with Brown's view of how best to do things. That meant that we as a nation then got a different bill of goods than the one we had voted for earlier and I feel that we would have been better served by a clear-cut fresh start. Brown would also have had a bit more of a mandate to do things and so on.
As a resident of the UK I'm still not entirely convinced that holding a series of elections to decide who you get to vote for in another election isn't either an elaborate practical joke or a barefaced attempt to have one thing on the news for 2 years running.
I've watched Yes, Prime Minister a few times so I think I have a vague understanding of how the UK system works, but maybe I don't so let me run it by you.
My understanding is that the prime minister is not elected separately from the parliament in the way that the US president is elected separately from congress, but is chosen by the party or coalition of parties that hold the majority in parliament. People only vote directly for their representatives in parliament. And while prime minister has similar powers and responsibilities to the US president of being in charge of the military, the government bureaucracy, diplomacy, and enacting the legislation the parliament/congress passes, the PM doesn't have any veto power over legislation and the parliament can replace them whenever it wants to.
Does that sound right?
Yes, apart from where the PM doesn't have veto powers and can be replaced whenever. Technically this is true, the PM is primus inter pares, first amongst equals, with no more power than anyone else. In practical terms, a PM with support of the party (bearing in mind that support from the party doesn't mean support from MPs in the party, one of our two main parties is currently led by someone who is there because of the base rather than other MPs) has a vast amount of power within the government, because the whole basis for who gets to be in charge is who can (assuming the party whips keep everyone in line) get a vote through the Commons without needing the support of any other party.
so the PM can't be replaced whenever? or are you saying that in practice they are only replaced when their faction loses control of the parliament? I had the impression they could also be changed when their party was unhappy with them or their performance. Also does the PM have some kind of actual veto powers or are you saying they wouldn't want to veto anything because their faction is necessarily the one in control of the legislature?
Generally they are only replaced when their party looses an election or they quit. I can only remember a single PM changing without an election in my lifetime and that was when Tony Blair quit and handed the job to Gordon Brown. Even that should have triggered an election imo, but that's besides the point.
As to the vetos, it's the latter situation, they don't need vetos because they have a controlling share of the legislature by the very nature of their position as leader of the party with a majority of the seats.
Thatcher was booted out in favour of John Major whilst the Tories still held power, though they later then held an election which they won (because at the time the government decided when to hold one as long as it wasn't more than five years since the last).
Tastyfish on
0
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
Every 5 years regardless now, since the coalition. It'll be interesting to see when Dave steps down because he was clear going into this that he's not standing again. I guess he's either out in September if we leave the EU or stepping down at the conference before the next election in 2020.
I was a wee lad when Major took over! I only really started paying attention to politics when I was 12 or so in the mid 90s.
I think the trend toward longer campaign seasons will continue until we reform spending/finance rules. I feel like a big part of why so many declare so early is so they can start soliciting for donations and get their superPAC lined up and all that
Thatcher was booted out in favour of John Major whilst the Tories still held power, though they later then held an election which they won (because at the time the government decided when to hold one as long as it wasn't more than five years since the last).
The 92 election was called on the very last day possible.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
+41
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Yeah I thought that name was odd when I read it the first time.
Reading the posts about "thug" in the previous thread, it feels like the nation's language is a pizza whose toppings are being decided by the biggest asshole in the room. Specifically, the people who choose to encode thug as with a racial connotation to disparage people of African and slave descent.
We think these people are assholes, that their conduct is deplorable, but we still shift our collective behavior to avoid the dog whistle terms they've created.
On the one hand, I hate the idea of shaping even more of my life around the actions of another set of assholes (1991 Operation Eastern Exit), but on the other hand, I cannot see a reasonable way to avoid re-enforcing asshole behavior through usage of these terms.
Once racist/transphobic/homophonic/misogynistic fuckers plant their flag on a term, there is no real way to take that flag off.
The Prime Minister system in Australia is just like the UK, except that since 2007 no one has really followed the "don't replace the prime minister while their party is still in power" rule. I don't think any prime minister has completed more than a single term, if that.
When I was in college I spoke with one of our city council members for an article for the local rag. He was Muslim, and he waxed about one of his pilgrimages to Mecca for a bit, which I included in the paper for some background. Of course, my college was in the middle of Iowa, so when it got handed off to one of the editors I didn't like, we ended up printing the following the day after the article ran:
The article about Mr. Mahmoud mentioned his pilgrimmage to Mecca, WI. The Holy City of Mecca is not located in Wisconsin. We regret the error.
The Prime Minister system in Australia is just like the UK, except that since 2007 no one has really followed the "don't replace the prime minister while their party is still in power" rule. I don't think any prime minister has completed more than a single term, if that.
i mean
that was never a rule
it generally hasn't happened too often but I remember leadership challenges happening sporadically through the 90s, just for example
(obviously we're now in a fucking ridiculous situation and it's gotten totally out of hand argle bargle ...)
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Okay so in the last thread when everyone was talking about rich people sports, somebody mentioned Formula 1 cars costing about USD$2.5 million. The most recent figures I can remember put it at closer to £3 million to actually build each car, with closer to £120 million per year in development and engineering for the top teams. So a two-car team with two test cars and one development mule is looking at around £135 million per annum just for the cars. The costs of running the rest of the team likely dwarf that figure though, especially if you are paying two of the top five drivers, because there's almost another £100 million alone...
0
Options
Tommy2Handswhat is this where am iRegistered Userregular
Quick question, it would be bad to vote for a candidate in two different primaries, correct
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Honestly, Rubio would probably be better off at this point trying to get in as Trump's running mate, because at this point he's squandered what little goodwill Florida voters had left towards them by spending most of his Senate term running for President and asking us to pay him for doing both.
[IMG][/img]
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Quick question, it would be bad to vote for a candidate in two different primaries, correct
For the same office? Generally yes. I assume you mean either in two different parties or in different states. There are edge cases where you can vote for multiple people for an office or position with multiple seats
Okay so in the last thread when everyone was talking about rich people sports, somebody mentioned Formula 1 cars costing about USD$2.5 million. The most recent figures I can remember put it at closer to £3 million to actually build each car, with closer to £120 million per year in development and engineering for the top teams. So a two-car team with two test cars and one development mule is looking at around £135 million per annum just for the cars. The costs of running the rest of the team likely dwarf that figure though, especially if you are paying two of the top five drivers, because there's almost another £100 million alone...
the engine alone is leased for over 5 million euro right now. the carbon might be worth 3.
The top 4 F1 teams will take home an average of 175M USD in F1 prize money alone, to say nothing of sponsorships.
I don't know what title sponsors cost in F1, but in Nascar, a title sponsor for a full season is about 20 million... so you can imagine F1 is probably a lot more.
Posts
I don't think multiple elections is a fair characterization. It's just that instead of a bunch of fifty year old men in a backroom deciding who the next nominee is going to be while watching game of thrones, you have an entire nation watching game of thrones and deciding who the next nominee of their party is going to be. This results in more populist candidates, more positional drift, and most importantly more HBO subscriptions.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Generally they are only replaced when their party looses an election or they quit. I can only remember a single PM changing without an election in my lifetime and that was when Tony Blair quit and handed the job to Gordon Brown. Even that should have triggered an election imo, but that's besides the point.
As to the vetos, it's the latter situation, they don't need vetos because they have a controlling share of the legislature by the very nature of their position as leader of the party with a majority of the seats.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
The PM's power comes from being the head of the party who has the ability to form the government (i.e. pass a vote through the Commons without caring what other parties want), and has therefore been asked to do so (purely as a formality) by the Queen. If the PM retains control of the party then the PM is essentially unassailable and as long as the party MPs vote along with the PM then they can pass any laws they want (as the second house is entirely defeatable by the first house, and we have no actual real constitution which protects certain laws or requires certain criteria to change them). Of course, if the PM loses the support of their party then it's the opposite way entirely, they can be unceremoniously shuffled off.
Prime Minister is not actually really an official role in the same way the President is a constitutionally assigned position. It basically means the boss of the party who has the most commons seats, as chosen by said party internally.
What do you mean by saying that should have triggered an election?
And it's a fair point to make! It's also entirely a personal opinion one what they should have voluntarily done, as there's no requirement to do it at all. The party could change PM every day if they wanted and could get elected.
It's just a personal thing really, that the change of personality at the top would (and did) affect the priorities of the government going forward, to better align with Brown's view of how best to do things. That meant that we as a nation then got a different bill of goods than the one we had voted for earlier and I feel that we would have been better served by a clear-cut fresh start. Brown would also have had a bit more of a mandate to do things and so on.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
I think you have to have one every five years max
Thatcher was booted out in favour of John Major whilst the Tories still held power, though they later then held an election which they won (because at the time the government decided when to hold one as long as it wasn't more than five years since the last).
I was a wee lad when Major took over! I only really started paying attention to politics when I was 12 or so in the mid 90s.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
fake edit- ha,
http://www.popsci.com/was-first-ever-virtual-reality-streamed-presidential-debate-success
The 92 election was called on the very last day possible.
Either he's not watching the debate or he has a fetish that I didn't knew existed.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
We think these people are assholes, that their conduct is deplorable, but we still shift our collective behavior to avoid the dog whistle terms they've created.
On the one hand, I hate the idea of shaping even more of my life around the actions of another set of assholes (1991 Operation Eastern Exit), but on the other hand, I cannot see a reasonable way to avoid re-enforcing asshole behavior through usage of these terms.
Once racist/transphobic/homophonic/misogynistic fuckers plant their flag on a term, there is no real way to take that flag off.
and that sticks.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
it doesn't have the racial connotation over here and I it never occurred to me that it might be a poor choice of word
Steam // Secret Satan
I'll give you two guesses which name shows up a lot.
MEGA TRUMP
SMART TRUMP
TRUMP DRAGON
TRUMP KING
TRUMP MASTER
TRUMP GIANT
TRUMP BEST HOLDINGS
Yup, that is a Trump company.
I sleep on Mars
When I was in college I spoke with one of our city council members for an article for the local rag. He was Muslim, and he waxed about one of his pilgrimages to Mecca for a bit, which I included in the paper for some background. Of course, my college was in the middle of Iowa, so when it got handed off to one of the editors I didn't like, we ended up printing the following the day after the article ran:
The article about Mr. Mahmoud mentioned his pilgrimmage to Mecca, WI. The Holy City of Mecca is not located in Wisconsin. We regret the error.
Chicago Megagame group
Watch me struggle to learn streaming! Point and laugh!
i mean
that was never a rule
it generally hasn't happened too often but I remember leadership challenges happening sporadically through the 90s, just for example
(obviously we're now in a fucking ridiculous situation and it's gotten totally out of hand argle bargle ...)
Why are American names only leaking now?
The GOP wanted to know if it need to sink Trump or Cuz
they've all been pretty good.
that first one was amazing, what fuckin amazing hero made that on-
oh this is embarrassing gosh
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And with that, Marco Rubio definitively answers a question I am not sure anyone was asking.
For the same office? Generally yes. I assume you mean either in two different parties or in different states. There are edge cases where you can vote for multiple people for an office or position with multiple seats
the engine alone is leased for over 5 million euro right now. the carbon might be worth 3.
The top 4 F1 teams will take home an average of 175M USD in F1 prize money alone, to say nothing of sponsorships.
I don't know what title sponsors cost in F1, but in Nascar, a title sponsor for a full season is about 20 million... so you can imagine F1 is probably a lot more.