May 2015 UK General Election Campaign.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course he does

I was unaware of that.

[dps]

What a bizarre statement.

[Tamas]

In Hungary it is a rare event wheat an MP doesn't vote what he is told to by party leadership

[Ed Anger]

In Hungary it is a rare event wheat an MP doesn't vote what he is told to by party leadership

Or he gets beeten.

[Valmy]

Somewhere Teddy Roosevelt is screaming in horror.

Will Cameron be heading the Bull Moose Party in 2025?

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is rather odd, we have a generation of career politicians yet they don't seem to be terribly good at politics 

[Gups]

I'm absolutely flabbergasted. He didn't seem to be drunk or high. I'm struggling to think of a worse pre-election blunder by a leader. After Osborne carefully shot all of Labour's foxes, Cameron opens up the hen house.

[Duque de Bragança]

I propose that the only acceptable post-election conditions should be the holding of referenda.

Referendae?  Referendums?  OK.

Referenda, second declension, neutral plural of referendum, so no referendae, since it would be first declension.

[Zanza]

Of course he does

I was unaware of that.

How did you think decision making processes in parties/coalitions in parliamentarian systems work? 

[celedhring]

To be honest in Spain party discipline is almost never broken, and unless there's some very weak leadership it will also always back the president's political initiative.

Would probably be different if we used single member districts. Now you're voting a party and not a given MP candidate, and thus the legitimacy resides in the party and not the individual MPs.

[jimmy olsen]

I don't see how the concept of a lame duck applies in a parliamentary system.

The American president also has his full formal powers all the way to 19th January. How is it different?

GWB got a lot of stuff done in the last two years and the opposition controlled the congress! Cameron will control Parliament, why should he have a problem?

[jimmy olsen]

I don't quite get the distinction your making here or how it relates to lame duckness.

A lame duck is considered lame because he is unable to make any long term promises, and therefore has ability to move his agenda forward.  That is different than another person vying for his position, which is what you seem to be talking about.

What long term promises (or even short term promises) do you think a PM who has announced their resignation can make?

Five years is a hell of a long time in politics.

[Gups]

I don't see how the concept of a lame duck applies in a parliamentary system.

The American president also has his full formal powers all the way to 19th January. How is it different?

GWB got a lot of stuff done in the last two years and the opposition controlled the congress! Cameron will control Parliament, why should he have a problem?

The President has specific powers under the constitution, the Prime Minister has very few, beyond patronage and leadership of his party. That doesn't mean he won't get anything done, but his authority will diminish and the party risks splitting amongst the main leadership candidates.

[Admiral Yi]

How did you think decision making processes in parties/coalitions in parliamentarian systems work? 

I figured the cabinet thrashed things out then the backbenchers fell in line.

[Valmy]

GWB got a lot of stuff done in the last two years and the opposition controlled the congress! Cameron will control Parliament, why should he have a problem?

GWB was not a Prime Minister.

But so long as we are talking about US Presidents Teddy Roosevelt announcing he would not seek a third term in 1904 cursed his entire second term, and the rest of his life actually. Unless there is some kind of formal term limits making an announcement like this is just stupid.