»

[Speelgoedmannetje]

And there's still no discussion over here on how to prevent such from happening. I wasn't happy with this and previous ministries, but I am surprised there's no discussion at all on how much this'll gonna cost us, and how to prevent this from happening in the future.

[Tigger]

Its the classic flaw (and some think the classic strength) of your form of govenment Speel. It would drive Americans crazy, (and may be having that effect on you), but its a side effect of how your (and other parliamentary) governments work.
-Tig

[Speelgoedmannetje]

An American model is even more impossible in this country methinks.
But we do need a change in political culture.

[odin]

In what way speel?

It's true that it is rather amazing on what small grounds the D66 blew the government up. If you ask me they should have done it ages ago though, D66 has given way too much concessions. All of their election spearpoints have faltered under the pressure of christian-democrats and the liberals.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Well there must be a investigation about what's really wrong with the government first. And there must be real consequences (by law) based on those findings.
But that's just one of my thoughts about our politics.

[odin]

Instigated by the government to find out what it wrong with itself? ;-).

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Well, that's atm the case.

[smithy]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
And there's still no discussion over here on how to prevent such from happening. I wasn't happy with this and previous ministries, but I am surprised there's no discussion at all on how much this'll gonna cost us, and how to prevent this from happening in the future.

Countries with proportional representation means that minority parties almost always hold the balance of power. This means a good representation, but short-lived, weak, divided governments with no power to do anything (not always a bad thing).

IMO, proportional representation is a poor system. It's proponents will argue that it gives good representation, but what's good about having a number of losers team up to "win" an election? It's a bit like at Olympic 100m hurdles, where 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 10th places team up to share the medals where the winners get nothing.

Anyway, if you want true representation then you need to dump PR and go with a Swiss-referendum type thing. On the other hand if you're interested in having (sometimes) powerful, visionary and idealist governments (where minority parties needn't take part), then you need a British-style first-past-the-post system.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

smithy wrote:
Anyway, if you want true representation then you need to dump PR and go with a Swiss-referendum type thing.

I thought about something like that. :-)
I think a frequent correction of the citizens make politics more stable.

[smithy]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

I thought about something like that. :-)
I think a frequent correction of the citizens make politics more stable.

I do like the idea. Imagine, every Monday morning, you log on to egovernment.gov and you get a list of proposals to vote yes/no/no opinion on. Click a few checkboxes and press submit:

Invade Iraq? Yes/No/No opinion
Lower taxes? Yes/No/No opinion
Stop paying EU contributions? Yes/No/No opinion
Widen M25? Yes/No/No opinion
Start new nuclear power stations programme? Yes/No/No opinion
Sell biggest UK airports to foreigners? Yes/No/No opinion

It's all very cool, but there are some decisions that are too tough for the public to agree, that are ultimately good for us or just has to be done.

[Cymric]

smithy wrote:
It's all very cool, but there are some decisions that are too tough for the public to agree, that are ultimately good for us or just has to be done.

I agree, and considering the utter stupidity of many people, I would vehemently oppose such a system unless you demonstrate objectively and unequivocally that you have a detailed working knowledge of the subject. If you don't, you're not qualified to vote for that particular area. Unfortunately, it would require way too much time to keep up.

In the current system of proportional representation I would vote for a party who claims to listen to the people, but indicates at the same time that's all they guarantee they can do. Politicians need to compromise: they cannot meet the wishes of everybody at the same time. People complaining that politicians 'don't do what the people want' should be told that there are about a zillion others with a different view. That's the downside of majority voting, and people should learn to live with the consequences.