As I understand it, they're a bunch of socialist bully-boys who tend to draw voters away from Labour and the Lib-Dems.  I think I'd opt for the UKIP myself.

One analysis I read of the election was that all 3 major parties were infested with American political consultants advising them all to go after the same 200,000 voters in critical swing districts while ignoring their own base of support.  Certainly Cameron is the wettest leader the Tories have had since Ted Heath, Gordon Brown despises his own voters and can't keep from insulting Clegg while trying to get him to form a coalition, and Clegg wants to unilaterally disarm.  Not a lot to like there.

Unless you mean National Socialist...

Far right racism.  The only good thing to come out of this election was that they got pretty trashed.

As for the possible upcoming Lib-Con coalition, could be a problem.  Lib Dems will likely get fed up and want to bring it down in the future, but then the Tories would be able to blame them and it would hit them in the election

Yes, I did mean National Socialist.  It's still socialist.  After all, Mussolini, who invented fascism, called it "the perfection of socialism".  All this left-right business came about because of disputes in the Socialist Internationale between whether "international socialism" or "national socialism" was destined to defeat capitalism.  Lenin and later Stalin placed themselves on the left, and the Fascists on the right, of a scale that had no place for capitalism or classical economic liberalism.

The BNP party manifesto calls for opposition to globalism, international socialism, laissez-faire capitalism and economic liberalism.  Sounds like National Socialism to me.

More like the perfection of modern propaganda. That line of bull is still working almost a century after those dictators fell. All because of a most unfortunate intersection of military power and fashion sense. Well, that and a global depression made worse for Germany by the Treaty of Versailles.

Re the UK nationalist parties, I thought it kind of poetic that the UKIP had a leader riding around in a plane pulling an ad banner crash to the ground and come out OK. Kind of like the wee folks said, "You need to work on your xenophobia, but since you're not outright thugs, we'll give you a 'good enough' landing."

Whether or not you choose to decorate a government with living antiques is a minor detail, but having hereditary positions of real public authority is not. What flavor of constitutional monarchist is your dad? And how would establishing a new monarchy help the US with our wretched excuse for a national campaign system?

What we really need is changes to the Constitution that do something to clearly exclude corporate spending from free speech protections and/or limit formal campaign seasons to something like the 6-week cycle they have in the UK. Oh, and PR or ranked-choice ballots would be a big help also. Our problems have two main roots: corporate money being confused with individual speech rights and a structural duopoly that ensures there is never a clear and reliable connection between election results and policy outcomes.

Socialism is dead, Long live Conservatism.

He's more of parliamentary monarchist, like the current British system. You also have to remember he's a New Zealander, which actually is a sort of constitutional monarchy under Queen Elizabeth, so it's not as if he's some sort of wild reactionary. I think he believes in a central figurehead with a lot of conditional and emergency powers but also with a lot of incentive to not use them. Obviously, not every monarch is a Juan Carlos I, but I think he's lost his faith in the objectivity of elected officials. To him, a monarch is objective oversight of the entire system, like a judge.

Me? I consider myself more of a Athenian democrat. Stupid mistakes are bound to be made, but at least in a direct democracy there's no one to blame but ourselves.

But essentially I agree with your opinions about the constitution. I don't think the founders ever really anticipated how insane elections would eventually get.

i think the election is over now.........how did the Raving Monster Loony Party do?    lol

Well, you know, I'm hardly an expert in the subject, but the queen does have quite a few reserve powers. I think of Juan Carlos I as his "ideal" monarch, and Juan Carlos has pretty much a stellar reputation and everyone loves him because he saved Spanish democracy twice and is super awesome and all that. Of course, the issue with hereditary power is that for every Juan Carlos there's someone embarrassing and terrible. My dad and I argue about this issue, and he contends that if you give these people independent, comfortable lives they aren't going to do all that much unless they absolutely have to.

My dad isn't fond of the idea of exporting monarchy to the United States, but other New Zealanders occasionally talk about removing the queen as head of state and my father is opposed to that. A strange position, as my dad never really stopped being a socialist, either.

Well, my big thing with most strict constructionists is that most of them are "strict constructionists" for a few narrow issues that they care about.  Other than that, I used to point out the founders didn't trust the common people enough, and they never anticipated a well-educated public. I'm not so sure I criticize them for that now, as the media has really successfully divided the country on every issue ranging from environmentalism and the economy to Obama's birth certificate. I really despise the media for making us a neo-tribal society and for eroding public unity at every issue. And honestly, it's not just Fox News. We really ought to have our own version of the BBC.

Well, Brown resigned and his fellow loonies are now relegated to the back benches

I'm all for Scottish independance. We could then legitimately deport Brown, Alan Hansen and all the other Scottish knobheads we seem to have inherited.

the queen may have limited executive power but she is held in high regard and has seen in and out many governments. in theory the heir can sit in the house of lords and promote legislation but they dont. i think a 5 year fixed parliament is ok if it helps sort out the mess and ushers in proportional representation and an end to the 2 party state