I enjoy following elections in countries where I cannot vote. Sometimes I think I like it better than when I can vote. Perhaps because I don't have as much invested, or perhaps because I don't have to make a choice. Or perhaps because the Norwegian system is somehow more sinsible (or, more likely, the crazy stuff does not stand out for me because I grew up with it).
Mostly because however messed up they are, they have to be better than my "third time the government falls in three years" Belgium.
Yesterday was another moment of glory. I read that Nick Clegg had said that Brown could not expect to continue to be Prime Minister if he lost the election and came third of the parties. My brain said "yeeeeees?", wondering a little if Clegg had run out of things to talk about since he had apparently turned to statements of the obvious.
Think about it: in a Labour-LibDem coalition, who would be the most obvious PM, Brown or Clegg? And it's not very clear how Clegg defines "coming third", but if by that he means third in the popular vote, then that means he's preparing for the likely result of the Lib Dems coming second or even first in the popular vote while remaining a distant third in terms of Commons seats. In such a case, Labour would be the dominant partner in the coalition in terms of seats, so the LibDems are trying to warn beforehand that they won't necessarily accept that Brown would continue as PM.
But. And here is the wonderful thing that makes following British politics a bit like a glorious car boot sale: today's paper makes clear (what it probably assumed I knew yesterday) that there is in fact a "constitutional convention" that in a hung parliament the Prime Minister is allowed to try to form a government first. So there is a genuine possibility that a man with the least votes gets to be PM. What happens if the LibDems turn down Labour the first time around (ie Gordon as PM) and then when it becomes their turn decides to run with Labour over Conservatives (which, let's face it, is the sensible thing to do for them), would Brown then say yes? Does anyone know?
I have no idea what Brown would do in such a situation. It seems quite possible that there'll be a minority government instead of a coalition, though...
British politics is ... like a basket of crazy muffins. But they taste nice.
- 26/04/2010 09:34:57 AM
785 Views
British politics or muffins taste nice? Or both?
- 26/04/2010 10:52:35 AM
500 Views
- 26/04/2010 10:52:35 AM
500 Views
Both 
- 26/04/2010 05:11:54 PM
672 Views
- 26/04/2010 05:11:54 PM
672 Views
Indeed
- 26/04/2010 11:01:30 AM
562 Views
Re: Indeed
- 26/04/2010 11:06:10 AM
494 Views
Didn't mean to put the effectively in there
- 26/04/2010 11:17:20 AM
448 Views
That makes more sense
- 26/04/2010 11:24:33 AM
584 Views
- 26/04/2010 11:24:33 AM
584 Views
Yeah, I follow elections in lots of countries.
- 26/04/2010 11:11:28 AM
616 Views
Re: Yeah, I follow elections in lots of countries.
- 26/04/2010 05:17:55 PM
552 Views
It's all very entertaining.
- 26/04/2010 01:46:25 PM
543 Views
Re: It's all very entertaining.
- 26/04/2010 05:21:25 PM
643 Views
- 28/04/2010 02:49:51 PM
589 Views
- 28/04/2010 02:49:51 PM
589 Views
It works alright when you have a two- or 2½-party system with support divided geographically.
- 26/04/2010 04:40:31 PM
465 Views
Would it really be so bad if the BNP gained seats?
- 26/04/2010 05:03:06 PM
577 Views
I don't have a problem with it as such (I dow ith the fact that people want to vote for them)
- 26/04/2010 05:15:02 PM
612 Views
Re: It works alright when you have a two- or 2½-party system with support divided geographically.
- 26/04/2010 06:14:44 PM
490 Views
Big fucking deal. Coalitions of less than 5 parties = LAME *NM*
- 28/04/2010 12:03:36 AM
213 Views
Rather a bigger deal when it happens in a first past the post system. *NM*
- 28/04/2010 08:20:42 AM
354 Views