hey, I just had this thought: we might wake up tomorrow and find that Gordon Brown isn’t the Prime Minister any more… imagine that… (sorry, I’ve gone all dreamy)

41 thoughts on “hey, I just had this thought: we might wake up tomorrow and find that Gordon Brown isn’t the Prime Minister any more… imagine that… (sorry, I’ve gone all dreamy)

  1. yes, who knows… husband says there was a long queue at the polling station and apparently a high voter turnout, I'm hoping that this is because so many people are fed up with this guy :)

    Like

  2. yes, polls closed just over an hour ago. if we had a television, it would be very tempting to sit up and watch the results unfolding. this time the pre-election poll results have been very very close.

    Like

  3. yes, the bbc have got a special elections section on their website, being updated in real time. predictions from the exit polls look great, but actual results are only trickling in – they've only announced the result for one seat so far. it's going to be a long night :)

    Like

  4. ok, so it looks like the brits have now got a situation which to them seems so weird they actually have a special name for it ("hung parliament") but it's only what is perfectly normal in Israel… it means that there isn't one party that has enough seats to form a government on its own.I guess that means that this is going to take a while…

    Like

  5. too much partying… lolI can see different angles to this issue.Being an Israeli, I know how ugly these cross-party negotiations can get, with the result being not at all representative of the wishes of the voters. We've got a very sad history of tiny parties holding the bigger parties to ransom and getting them to approve legislation that is not in reality supported by the majority of the population, but it's the only way they can get a government going.

    Like

  6. are you kidding? that happens even when the majority party gets their way. here in America, individual representatives get perks for their local constituents, even if it's not something his own party would desire. we call it pork. it's all just to get the votes for next election. and our tax dollars foot the bills. the voters hate it when the other rep's constituents' get perks at their tax expense, but when it's for them, they demand it, even when it's only a small minority of the voters.

    Like

  7. ah yes… I'm sure that goes on here too, because here too people vote for someone to represent their geographic location. In Israel we don't have that, we vote for a party and all the votes are pooled together, nationally, so no MK is answerable to people in a particular town or area, they're answerable to the nation as a whole.and whilst I see the pros of having someone in parliament who is supposed to be there for you because of where you live, I also see how this means that the parliament you get does not actually reflect what the people want, and how frustrated some people feel when their vote is wasted because they live in an area that is so strongly supportive of one party or another, that their vote for a smaller party doesn't really count.but I haven't got an ideal solution :(

    Like

  8. we had a better solution when our federal government had less power over the "states" (which means … LOL)yes, we were supposed to be a union of lesser countries, so to speak, with a much less powerful central government in place for the purposes of common defense, commerce, citizenship – stuff like that – between the smaller states. i was just talking to Joshua the other day about our nation's civil war, and how people make it very simplistic like it was all about slavery, and the southern states were the bad guys, but i think the only reason their point in the matter was missed is because they were so wrong on the laws they chose to defend. while on the one hand, slavery was totally wrong, and the federal government did have a right to put their foot down about that, the southern states did have a point that they didn't want the federal government overstepping their bounds in what should be "state's business". in the case of oppressing people who should have been considered citizens, the states were wrong that it was just their business to make the laws, but they were right that the federal government would use and abuse this newfound power of stepping in and overruling state laws to lord it over the states.they were so, so right. : ( while it's great that slavery is over, our nation has, in many ways, been so much worse off ever since.

    Like

  9. as long as it doesn't involve hanging chads, i'm sure they'll find a way through it. ;-) so what's the next step? i doubt you can have co-PMs. do you hold a second election with just those two parties as options?

    Like

  10. the next step is negotiations.what seems most likely is that the conservatives will form a coalition government with the liberal democrats (lib dems, for short), but it's also possible (from what I've been reading on the bbc website – trying to fathom the way things work in this country) that it won't be a coalition, in that the lib dems won't have ministers in the government, but they'll agree to support the government in passing laws.there is also the option that the lib dems will end up doing such a deal with the labour party, though it would make for a much weaker government because these two parties don't have an overall majority between them. (which we can see now that the full results are known)how does it go in the US?

    Like

  11. seriously, the presidential election is separate from the elections for our congress, which is also separate (the elections for house of representative have nothing to do with the elections for senate). and as far as our judicial branch goes, the president nominates, and the congress (is it just a committee? – man, i should read the news more!) approves or disapproves.

    Like

  12. oh, I doubt very much that it will come to that. I'm sure they've been thinking about possible deals all along anyway, as the polls were predicting the possibility of a hung parliament. I don't expect it will take them that long to work something out.

    Like

  13. oh. here the lines still seem pretty unblurred – at least the way I see it: Labour are into a super high level of government intervention, a let-us-fix-all-your-problems approach, which is very costly in terms of taxes and also very ineffectual. I mean, if they gave me any evidence that they can do the job well, I'd consider letting them… but they've made such a mess of everything… so it seems to me that Gordon Brown approached this election saying to the voters: the country is in a mess, give me another term in office to fix it; whilst neglecting to answer such quibbles as (1) who got us into this mess in the first place; and (2) what have you done with the time you've already had in office? how come you haven't shown any sign of fixing anything yet?so, though I don't think the Conservatives are perfect, I would much rather see them in charge. I'd like to see less government meddling. And I do seriously believe these guys have a better understanding of the economy, so there's a much better chance that they'll help recovery.

    Like

  14. they should use the ukrainian method — throwing eggs and smoke bombs. it might not accomplish as much, but it sure looks like a lot of fun (unless you get punched in the face).

    Like

Questions? Thoughts? Talk to me - I don't bite :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s