tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post8445032611266425065..comments2024-03-28T16:15:19.319-04:00Comments on Saideman's Semi-Spew: Confusion on the Way to DamascusSteve Saidemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-83146892379972783712013-09-04T13:19:44.349-04:002013-09-04T13:19:44.349-04:00Your points on Cameron failing to rally his own pa...Your points on Cameron failing to rally his own party are well taken. One basic assumption we made throughout the book was that parties were mostly single actors. That the Tories could not cooperate here was most surprising.Steve Saidemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-82359057583096354732013-09-04T13:17:42.854-04:002013-09-04T13:17:42.854-04:00Naturally, I generally agree with your take here. ...Naturally, I generally agree with your take here. "Presidentialization" of parties and executive-legislative relations is really on display in France and the USA, and "parliamentarization" in the UK, with respect to this case.<br /><br />I prefer "presidentialization" (i.e. dependence on the preferences of the president) over reference to "personality" of the president. But that may be more quibble than substance.<br /><br />As for UK, yes, it is of course a coalition. But as far as I can tell, the coalition is not the reason for the rejection of Cameron's preferences. He could not command his own party, of which he is an agent, given parliamentarism. <br /><br />I can't recall anything in the public record about Clegg and his front-benchers constraining Cameron, and the LibDem defections in the parliamentary vote would not have mattered if the Conservatives had rallied behind their leader.Matthew Shugart a.k.a @laderafrutalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13659011281858925789noreply@blogger.com