If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Government of National Unity?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I was toying with this idea as I read the papers this morning and wanted to know what you guys thought of it:
Is now the time to declare a government of national unity in the United Kingdom?
Well? Here are the arguments I came up with:
For:
There are many able men (and women) on the other side of the House who could be of great use at this time. Iain Duncan Smith is one of them, Charles Kennedy another.
In the face of a threat such as the one we now face, a unified government seems appropriate, and has historical precedent.
A government of national unity would have a resounding mandate to do the necessary on both the home and foreign fronts. Domestic issues like transport, healthcare &c. should not be forgotten even in this crisis; a government of national unity would have great potential to puch much-needed legislation through.
Against:
It could be the first step to ending parliamentary democracy in the UK. Who is to say when such a government would end? After one year? Two? When the threat has passed? If so, who decides when the threat has passed?
The immediate threat has, in fact, passed. September 12 might have been the time for a government of national unity, but that moment has passed. If the UK were under direct and immediate threat, then perhaps a unified government would be justified.
Blair has quite a capable team working with him anyway. Introducing persons from the other side, however able, would reduce government efficiency as partisan tensions might interfere.
Well, any thoughts?
P.S. These are just arguments that floated through my consciousness - I don't necessarily think they're all right and true.
P.P.S. Shall we abbreviate "government of national unity" to GNU? <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Is now the time to declare a government of national unity in the United Kingdom?
Well? Here are the arguments I came up with:
For:
There are many able men (and women) on the other side of the House who could be of great use at this time. Iain Duncan Smith is one of them, Charles Kennedy another.
In the face of a threat such as the one we now face, a unified government seems appropriate, and has historical precedent.
A government of national unity would have a resounding mandate to do the necessary on both the home and foreign fronts. Domestic issues like transport, healthcare &c. should not be forgotten even in this crisis; a government of national unity would have great potential to puch much-needed legislation through.
Against:
It could be the first step to ending parliamentary democracy in the UK. Who is to say when such a government would end? After one year? Two? When the threat has passed? If so, who decides when the threat has passed?
The immediate threat has, in fact, passed. September 12 might have been the time for a government of national unity, but that moment has passed. If the UK were under direct and immediate threat, then perhaps a unified government would be justified.
Blair has quite a capable team working with him anyway. Introducing persons from the other side, however able, would reduce government efficiency as partisan tensions might interfere.
Well, any thoughts?
P.S. These are just arguments that floated through my consciousness - I don't necessarily think they're all right and true.
P.P.S. Shall we abbreviate "government of national unity" to GNU? <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
0
Comments
Perhaps instead of electing parties we elect the leader, who outlines what he/she intends to do during their term. That way the public can prioritise what they think should be done.
For example if a possible leader says he is going to concentrate solely on the NHS, while another says he will concentrate mainly on crime (obviously not at the expense of everything else) then the public can decide for themselves what needs to be done.
I was reading in the paper the other day about something similar, it posed the question "is colonialism the only hope for world peace?".
It made for interesting reading, stating the reasons for and against.
It said that all the countries under foreign occupation at the moment or in the past have always fared better, for example Sierra Leone is now a lot more peaceful now British Troops are protecting the civilians. The same goes for Kosovo, it is a much safer place.
One advantage of colonialism is that the ruling nation is responsible for the other, meaning the infrastructure is likely to be improved significantly, more advanced teaching and healthcare as well as maintenance of those things.
Take India for example, Indians were given British passports, and British citizenship. India was governed in a fairly enlightend way, and it is well known that Indian working class children had a much better standard of living than their British counterparts.
Despite what the media says we are in no more danger than we were at the height of Saddams war. He developed anthrax back in 1990 and has been willing to use it.
If things start to go downhill ie, certain arab govts being overthrown or further attacks on US or more specifically UK soil then I can see the need for a GNU. Until things get more serious we dont need to suspend normal govt functions.
Also...Charles Kennedy in a position of power? Sends shudders through me just thinking of it.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
I wouldn't advocate a GNU as a standing method of government - there's far too much potential for abuse of the system. As a crisis measure, though, it has great adavntages.
Let me repeat that I'm not necessarily suporting or oposing the idea of GNU right now - I was just toying with the idea, looking at it both ways, and wondering what people thought.