In the name of Islam

It's good to read of such and one can only hope that the few (6) protesters who turned-up have come to realise that the vast majority of Muslims are ordinary, kind and peace-loving peoples who, just like the EDL, are outraged by the slaying of the Fusilier.

But I doubt it.

Not sure where the Isle of Man comes into it. It isn't relevant to all of this.

With the British 2 party system the government of the day does not and has not represented a decent majority of the electorate. A good strong coalition would achieve that to a greater degree. With the added benefit of, by its very nature, acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole rather than in the best interests of the government of the day or the minority that voted it in.

With the 2 part system you are forced to exercise a choice of one or the other when in truth you really don't want either but are given a choice of a blend of policies that you don't want and neither does the majority of the electorate.

The 2 party system forces us to vote one or the other when in truth many don't really want either.

And I am sorry, but I don't want to see extreme Tory or extreme Labour policies adopted.

I believe that it is the 2 party system that has created many of the problems in recent times by both Labour and the Tories - the very problems that Labour and Conservative supporters argue with each other about all day long. Precisely as they have been given the freedom to do the wrong thing for the country. A good coalition would have prevented that.

I agree.
Although not particularly happy with the coalition I can feel this sort of Government growing on me. It seems to work well in Germany. If they genuinely have the best interest of the country at heart then they need to be able to work together.
A major issue for me at the next election is a vote on our continued membership of the EU. You can be sure that if it was left to the 2 main parties we will not get the vote. However all of a sudden due to the UKIP influence Cameron is suddenly promising a vote. Interesting times ahead I think.

That's not necessarily true. I think you'll find that the current coalition was voted-in by less than 50% of the total electorate. And I would suggest that it is neither strong nor acting in the nation's best interest. If it were then Clegg would honour his election manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on Europe and he would not be vetoing the Communications Bill.

That is also untrue. I don't believe there is a constituency in the land where the only choices are Conservative or Labour. There's a wealth of other political parties to choose from and if none of them appeal, there's probably an independent or two also standing.

So you don't want the Europe question resolved, extremist websites banned, the economy brought back to life, the NHS restructured and put on a safe financial footing, the housing shortage addressed or Qatadar deported? All these things will be viewed as being "extreme" to some in the country who disagree with their implementation.

I put it down to voter apathy coupled with career politicians who have never held a proper salaried job in their lives and are completely out of touch with their masters, the electorate. On the one hand you have a party dedicated to ensure the rich get richer and on the other, a bunch of champagne socialists. Not much for a working man to choose from, I agree!

I can't see from where you draw that conclusion. Of course they all need addressing one way or another and the same goes for a host of issues in the past. But the question is which government is the best to sort them out in a manner that is best for the country as a whole. Not a so called strong Labour party or a so called strong Conservative party evidently as they so often don't get it quite right. A cross party government would be the best solution, across the board, to sort out "extreme" "things", as you put it. It worked when at war with Germany.

We need a stronger coalition then. Simples. And we may just get that at the next election.

It is true. Many people feel compelled to vote for one major party or the other as they are constatly being bombarded with " a vote for the Liberals is a wasted vote " or out of tradition etc

We are only now beginning to see sections of the electorate as a whole looking to other parties, other than the main two, in a manner not seen in my lifetime.

I wouldnt be quite so negative about UK politicians as that. Not all of them. But yes, yet another argument for a coalition government.

And not much for any man to choose from, never mind the working man.

Only real coalition politics can give voters parties to fit their passions. Britain's two-party system is a tribal anachronism. It survives by excluding the issues people care about

"It has become a commonplace to argue that none of the party leaders are up to the job. Perhaps the fault lies less with them than us. Perhaps we are asking too much? Our political system is based on an old world in which two tribes dominated, and the odd smaller grouping received the odd indulgent look-in. Economic and technological change has rendered this model of thinking redundant. Our politics has lost sight of social trends.
In our instant, individualised society it is ridiculous to imagine that a single party can cater to all our needs, or command enough of our disparate nation to govern with legitimacy on its own. Such a mindset is stuck in a time when we had one phone provider, three TV stations and a handful of newspapers weightily informing us about what we needed to know. If choice is the mantra for the way we lead our lives, why is it any different for our politics?

Cameron cannot reconcile socially liberal and metropolitan Conservatism with the rougher and readier variant in the shires – not because he is a poor prime minister (although he may be), but because it is impossible. Miliband struggles to convince voters from the affluent south-east of the merits of more redistributive and interventionist policies, just as his predecessors did.
The electoral system forces them to tailor their messages to appeal to a voter base broad enough to win an election, but that doesn't exist any more. Politics by amorphous association does not work now. At the 2010 election two-thirds of those who bothered to vote opted for the two main parties – and many of them did so under duress, either tactically or for want of anything better. The only way the large parties can hide their fault lines is by excluding dozens of issues people feel passionate about.
"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/28/only-real-coalition-politics

In an ideal world, yes maybe, but we don't live in an ideal world. And contrary to what you might think, the wartime "coalition" didn't actually work as far as Britain's domestic issues were concerned. What you rightly say worked was Churchill's wartime Cabinet where Churchill was both Prime Minister and Minister of Defence with five other ministers, four of whom were Conservative and one "National" (Labour). That Cabinet prosecuted the war whilst Parliament as a whole dealt with domestic issues. As the Prime Minister had very little time to devote to the Commons, it was a bit of a rudderless government with the result that the 1945 General Election gave Labour a landslide victory.

I strongly suspect that you'll be horrified if that comes to pass because right now I'd bet on a Conservative-UKIP coalition!

You are, of course, entitled to your view; it is one that I strongly disagree with since history proves coalition governments do not work in the UK.

We have strayed somewhat from the topic and I want to bring us back "on track" with an observation. There is an identically named topic to this on a Cebu-centric forum which is somewhat more highly-charged on account of the fact that most of the protagonists are American. It makes grim reading as does another thread that dealt more directly with the slaying of Lee Rigby. There are the usual - and predictable - "let's go bomb the hell out of Iran, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza" utterances from former US military members who also poured scorn on - as they put it - the poor marksmanship of the Police as they didn't shoot to kill. American Police shoot first and ask questions afterwards - if their target survives, of course, but those taking part in the thread can not get their little heads around the fact that CO19 officers are highly-trained marksmen who are taught to maim and neutralise targets and not to kill unless there is no option. They don't seem to understand that had Lee's murderers been shot dead, Islamists would declare them as martyrs and that in itself would be a rallying call to other extremists.

The London bombings on 7/7 persuaded me that Britain really needs to distance itself from US foreign policy and Lee Rigby's murder has reinforced that opinion. In my opinion the US does not deal fairly in the Middle East due to the presence of very rich and powerful Jewish lobbyists in that country and our unflinching support is, I believe, a major reason for existence of Islamist hate preachers and the radicalisation of British Muslim youth. Bush's war on terrorism is, to my mind, simply that: Afghanistan is not and never has been a threat to NATO and we shouldn't be a part of it (Afghanistan). Simply by removing our troops and distancing ourselves from America's foreign policy will make Britain a much safer place.

Hahaha!! Read the comments at the foot of that piece and you'll find many disagree!

I don't disagree with that.

I dont believe that as UKIP will take votes off the Conservatives. More likely a Lab / Lib coalition.

I think that history has proven that the two party system has let the country down with many wrong policies being implemented.

Farage has recently stated that UKIP will not put up a candidate in opposition to a Euro-sceptic Conservative and also Conservative candidates will be able to run under two banners if they so choose. That tells me that Farage may be the next king-maker.

Labour and Liberals?!! You jest: they weren't able to come to an agreement in 2010 what make you think they will in 2015? But if that were to come to pass, not only would Britain's problems not be solved, they'd worsen.

Then blame the electorate!

Ultimately, of course it is all down to the electorate.

A broad based coalition is the real answer.

The Liberals made it very clear, speaking to the media at the time, that they had found, in discussions with Labour, that Labour had not thought about a coalition and had no list of points on which they could agree a policy, whilst the Conservatives had done done their homework in detail and the Liberals found, to their own slight surprise, that they could do business with them.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has some very pertinent comments about the leaders of her ex-religion:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323475304578503613890263762.html

If anyone doesn't know of her, her Wiki page is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

You are probably right, Mark.

I have been saying this for years.
What's the point in putting any of our soldiers and countrymen at risk?
As soldiers they have to obey orders but many must be doubting the rationale for being there.
Such a waste of life, particularly the innocent civilians who have lost their lives.
Soldiers sign up for a fight, many civilians do not.