Icelandic Pirate Party maroons itself from coalition talks Piracy it seems, does not pay: Iceland's Pirate Party may have won ten seats in the nation's Parliament, but is indifferent about having just one at the negotiating table for a new governing coalition. A year ago Píratar looked like being the dominant party in Iceland's Alþingi, but come election day it won only 14.5 per cent …
It seems to me the Pirates are being sensible here.
They don't think they can be part of a stable coalition, so they won't try to negotiate at all. That seems better than trying to get your way, then having unhappy partners in government.
That's how you get early elections and an unhappy electorate.
Oh, the advantages of being in the opposition (or being young)!
You can complain and complain, because of course nothing is your fault, you are not in government (not a parent)!
It really surprises me how the Pirates were SO high in the pre-election polls, then went down, to something not bad - 10 seats is no joke, but they "almost" had to grow up real fast. Might happen some day, will be worth to see. BTW, anyone knows if they intend to stop the shameful killing of whales that Iceland still condones?
@ anonCoward24
"BTW, anyone knows if they intend to stop the shameful killing of whales that Iceland still condones?
Yes! I have it on the very best authority that the Icelanders are going to raise crops of wheat, and corn, with some planting peas and carrots. Oh, and oranges and bananas! Very soon now!
Iceland should do what we do in the UK, install a non-elected Dictator, then surround her with the weakest, stupidest individuals you can find. If that doesn't work, install mass surveillance, or trial technologies on 'key' parts of the population, which say 'step out of line, we're watching you'.
Makes for a happy Population.
"Iceland should do what we do in the UK, install a non-elected Dictator, then surround her with the weakest, stupidest individuals you can find"
second time we've had that in ten years, although the first time it was obviously surround him, not her. The rest is pretty much the same though.
"do what we do in the UK, install a non-elected Dictator"
You obviously don't understand the UK electoral system if you think that. All PMs are "unelected" in the way that you seem to mean. The only people who might be voting for a PM are the people in the constituency of the likely PM and even then, they are not choosing between PMs, just MPs, since the losing opposition candidates in the prospective PMs constituency are unlikely to also be prospective PMs.
Here in the UK, we vote ONLY for a local MP. The winning party then chooses the PM from their elected ranks of MPs, usually the the party leader who did the campaigning. And even then, the Queen has to accept said nominee. There have been times when the monarch has chosen an unelected person to be PM and asked them to form a government. Not recent;y of course, but that's still a possibility.
It seems we have so much coverage of the US presidential elections here in the UK that some people are getting confused about our own electoral process.
Which reminds me of one of Dabbsy's recent offerings:
[... ] But all I was hearing was the line: “We don’t like unelected officials telling us what to do”. What unelected officials are these? “The European Commission,” they’d tell me.
Members of the European Commission are indeed nominated by something called the European Council but, I tried to explain, this Council comprises the European heads of state (elected by us), and even so, their choice is still subject to approval by a vote in the European Parliament (also elected by us). In fact, the head of the European Commission is directly elected by the European Parliament (who are elected by…? Oh yes, that’s right: us).
Electing the European Commission may not be a plebiscite but it is just the same as voting for a MP whose political party has decided that an off-shore money-laundering, tax-dodging toff should be Prime Minister whether you like it or not, only to ditch him barely a year later in favour some other imbecilic, dough-faced cunt.
As John Brown said, it does seem that in the UK (and in quite a lot of other countries too) some people are getting confused about their country's own electoral process.
Which does invite the question whether there shouldn't be some sort of test involved. You know, like when getting a driving permit.
It's easier to sit back and complain, then to take the lead and fix a problem.
That's all the Pirates are doing, choosing to say sorry but we dont have solutions, and we dont want to take responsibility for fixing the problems, but we're happy to criticise when others propose solutions...
The opposition is not there to oppose, it is there to call those in power to account, to ask the awkward questions about the policies that those in power want to enact.
Those in power can not be allowed to act without first justifying their position.
Having an opposition is no guarantee of better law making but it does improve the chances
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
