coalition

You mean voting who you want not only to run the country, but who gets to a position of leadership within the party? I guess our choices are limited. I think it would be a better system if it was brought back into effect that voting was compulsory for over-18s and those able enough to because by withholding your right to exercise your vote you are in effect saying that you don't care who leads the country or what its future is. Those who work are obliged to pay taxes; so those who are able and old enough should influence by their vote their country's leaders and future. Only by all people voting in the elections can you get a correct and statistically accurate general consensus of who the majority want in power. Granted, it is majority decision, but it is also a consistently across-the-board democratic one. The more people who take part in a survey, the more accurate and clearer the picture of people's preference shall be from the results. The less numbers that are polled, the more restricted and less balanced the chance is of eliciting a unanimous verdict based on varied choice. It is lazy and fatalistic not to vote, and we have a democracy which allows us the privilege so let's use it.

What democracy do we actually have? 653 MP's at war with the people and, we don't want any of them.

It is a more democratic system than many countries, incl. USA. We must adapt with the changing situation, try to move faster and vote for the person who best represents us and our will-to-power. We must try to then influence our leaders by trying to win back their attention for the public's needs. We have forms of protestation, demonstration, lobbying and even boycott that would make them sit up and listen. What are 653 against a population 10 times that of Israel in the UK. Our leaders are slightly more flexible over here even if this is no longer the 60s-70s.

We have used boycott for years, over 40% of the electorate do not vote, mainly as their vote does not mean anything. The USA has always been economic slavery and Bush was leading them just like Pol Pot.
If you haven't noticed people get murdered by the Stasi style things we call Bobbies on so -called peacefull demonstrations in UK, which, by the by, you must have a certificate of approval from the stasi for. And your leaders are only flexible when they are putting taxpayers money in their back pockets.
Are we all mad when we rationalise about a bunch of crooks who have destroyed our economy? or are we too tarred with the same brush to understand that this political filth have pillaged our country.

Do you think it is time to encourage more political party aspirants to come out of their shells and bring a fresh sweeping change to politics? Do you think the face of the political scene needs a clean sweep; a rethink of ideas and policies? Have we exhausted all the possible categorical political bents already? Have you heard of the New Party (check the 'net for 'em) or the Liberals in the UK? I think the Liberals don't get in only because they are not on one side or the other:people need a cause, not a compromise. I think Labour are in danger of failure by going on the same "side" of the road:the centre.
Is it perhaps time for a new party to emerge? You in USA will have to be patient. We have more political bents in UK, but only Labour or Conservative ever seem to get in; with you (plural) it seems to be either Democrats or Republicans. One possible reason McCain did not make it and Obama did was because McCain was a Republican Conservative and so pro-Bush. Obama was pro-Clinton. Where was Kerry in all this? He was considered but rejected in favour of Hillary for Secretary, was he not? It is early days with Obama. Give him a chance to prove his worth, his trustworthiness, and if he fails the test then don't vote him in the next term. You've got 4yrs. Who knows in that time who else might come up:have you heard Gavin Newsom? Some of his ideas are quirky, it is said, but I think he means well:I think he is pro-ecological. But Obama will/has become established as a household deity. I think familiarity with a leader is what gives him/her the edge over a newcomer in your country. People feel safe with that. Obama the exception.
Have YOU ever felt you want to resolve the economic problems of your country by taking a stand on a poilitical platform? I wish that I was up there having my say. My fiercely anti-racist sentiments might work against me however. Parties like UKIP (and even BNP) play upon the seeming incredulity of parties' like Labour's position on racial/religious affairs, but I think there are solutions to those problems OTHER than the unilateral mindset of UKIP and BNP. Other parties can accord the same benefits to UK citizens whilst still showing consideration for the equal rights needs of immigrants who've been here a long time.
But a new party means a new danger? As they(Tories) said once on billboards in the UK once of Labour:New Labour, New Danger.
But there is less danger now with a rethink of one's policies than an inflexible position that some may hold:that is why when Obama dithered over the Iraq situ I think that is the sign of a leader who is able to rethink his policies, and in some ways that is safe.

The 'thinking time' is over, political parties most of whom have never had any other experience than politics and, a mere one or two out of 550 can barely read a balance sheet, many of the rest would be classed as retards in any Psychological test: and are not capable of running such a complexity as has evolved today.
The almost total dopes acting as secretaries of state are a pushover for every twister after tax payers money. How could we continue to be so stupid as to allot billions of taxpayers money to someone who cannot be called to account in the courts. The old Civil Service, alas sadly destroyed by mad thatcher, used to act as department Chair cum Ceo and did a superb job in controlling the idiot ministers.
New Parties, I attended the green party conference: a lovely group of Ye olde english educated caring people, in the thrall of a vicious ice maiden with nothing but power on her mind. It made me physically sick, and convinced me that politics as was will not do the job.

We need appointed 'Commissioners' to run state departments as corporate entities. No more half- assed vote begging smarmy shysters.

Obama, he certainly started right for me and we can but hope he can continue.

Thank you for your interesting views.

The 'Thinking time' has barely begun for you it would appear

I think that not only should potential politicians go to college or uni to get their grades, but that they should be given an aptitude test upon applying for the job or career they want. This could filter out mere wannabes and make sure we get intelligent stock and produce. Perhaps a crash course in realism is what we are thinking about here.
As for calling them to account, I sympathise with you. Perhaps the public could find a way of making political leaders accountable while not shouldering too much of the burden? Politics is not only about governing the people but listening to their needs and fears:the shepherd and the sheep analogy.

It looks as though the 'shepherd' is sleeping on the job - the Wolves are winning Big Time!

There calls for something that the wolves fear and respect (like a lion or a leopard, for instance) to keep the wolves in check. Perhaps something that the leaders fear or respect from the public, taking back some small per centage of power and gradually stealthily increasing it over time. The power isn't always in the hands of the politician, I hear; it is sometimes in the paws of the moneylender from whom the government needs to borrow?

We waited and we have seen, two ridiculous tricksters are dominating the election offering the most awful tripe about what they will give us with our own money. Can anything be more obscene than the political trollopes Sammy et Sarah flashing their pathetic wares at voters, like whores in a bordello, as their current attachments obviously show little respect for them, might I suggest dumping them and finding a real man, not a pathetic creep who wants to pimp them for votes. Do any of us actually care what or who they are. they are not seeking public office so why all this far from tit - avating to voters whose concerns and fears are about the security of their lives.
I, as all others are, am totally clueless about who or what is going to be done for the safety, security and management of the business of running this country. All i seem to hear is, how much of my money they will spend to buy my vote.

Yeah, democracy blows.