There speaks a Liberal politician
Why do I get the sneaking feeling that Britain’s deputy prime minister is going to be competing for attention with the prime minister, and that there are going to be two prime ministers in the public eye (though only one effective one)?
The Times, today
Only Malta more centralised than Britain – Nick Clegg
Nick Clegg, the UK’s Liberal Democratic deputy Prime Minister, yesterday labelled Malta as the most centralised country in Europe.
“Britain was once the cradle of modern democracy. We are now, on some measures, the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta,” he said.
Mr Clegg promised a revolutionary change in UK government where the State would have far less control and power would be handed back to the people.
“We will redistribute power away from the centre and into the community, your homes and your hands.”
He said democracy had suffered from “encroaching centralisation” where civil rights were eroded by excessive surveillance and intrusive laws all limiting freedom and quashing dissent.
He called for more “open, transparent and decent” politics, promising the biggest shake-up of democracy since 1832.
“This government will be unlike any other,” he began. He also criticised the current welfare system saying that there was exces-sive centralisation, which required a “big-bang approach” to reform.
As a liberal, he said he believed that most people, most of the time, would make the right choices for themselves so the government did not need to tell people how to run their lives.
“The government will trust people”, he said, adding that this would create a fair society and enable people to put their faith in politics once again.
He said there would be a review of libel laws to better protect freedom of speech and ask people to decide which laws should go, as well as giving them the right to sack corrupt MPs.
46 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What happened to your Indi piece? Is two-hats replacing you:)?
[Daphne – I was busy.]
Ha nzomm mieghek din id-darba Daphne. Dan il-bicca cuc hawn lanqas dicenza m’ghandu. X’diplomazija dik eh.
I guess you don’t like this 3-party phase Britain is going through. Could be that Clegg is voicing policies that Cameron agrees with but cannot voice publicly because of the geezers in the party.
[Daphne – If Cameron agreed with Clegg’s ideas then Cameron would be a Liberal, not a Conservative. Conservative politics are seriously at odds with Liberal politics. The Liberals are politically closer to Labour. I don’t think anyone likes the situation. In London the general consensus in the media seems to be giving this government two years.]
What do you think of his comments on excessive centralisation?
[Daphne – I think ID cards make life much easier and I argue about this with British people all the time. The price they pay for their ‘freedom’ from ID cards is rampant identity theft and social benefits abuse. But then it is true that the spirit of freedom is much stronger and that there is far more privacy – but then there is far more respect for privacy, too.]
Don’t you think that devolution would make politics more honest and government represent citizens better? Indeed it was the PN that locally started by creating local councils.
[Daphne – The potential for devolution is debatable when the government itself is little more than a town council. I happen to think that local councils have made us pettier, rather than the opposite.]
Britain seems to be plagued by large bureaucracies that control the minutiae of what happens in hospitals, schools and boroughs, stifling any chance of good and efficient governance. I thought you didn’t like totalitarian states…
[Daphne – I don’t. But the large bureaucracies there are counterbalanced by so much respect for civil rights and individual freedoms, and not necessarily enshrined in the law but part of social culture.]
“Indeed it was the PN that locally started by creating local councils.”
Actually it was the French in 1798.
ID cards in the UK – it was proposed that you pay for them, not free as in Malta. How many would buy them in Malta if you had to pay for them I wonder?
[Daphne – Buy them? Buy them? ID cards are mandatory. You can’t have a system in which people have the choice of ‘buying’ an ID card or not. You don’t buy and ID card – you’re obliged to pay for it. And Maltese ID cards are not free. They come out of your taxes.]
Watch it!
Cameron is a Liberal Conservative.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8685185.stm
As for the way the British prime minister and deputy prime minister will work together in a way that one does not get into the way of the other and yet the PM maintains leadership has yet to be seen. For those interested, there is a full interview around this here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8685227.stm
Now, as for the caption above, “I agree with Nick.” I am a great supporter of smaller government.
Unfortunately, there is still too much dependence on the government in Malta. Too much of “Il-gvern imissu jaghmel hekk,” and too many prime ministers in Malta – just look at the comment sections on timesofmalta.com. It shows that people continue to expect the government to do just about anything, and it is very tempting for politicians to do just that.
In my view, the government has brought about an increase in bureaucracy, and in doing so, increased its size and role far too much. This is costing too much to run the country and we have to question if this is sustainable long term. We have not had a balanced budget for decades here in Malta.
Take the energy controversy in the news recently. Why is our government still running the energy generation, transmission/distribution, and, listen to this, its regulation at the same time? Why has this sector not been privatised, and government just regulating, as it does with telecoms, banks etc?
Had this been the case, we would not have Joseph Muscat, Justyne Caruana, Edward Mallia, and others all blaming the government about the purchase of a power generating plant for Delimara.
People need to be given more trust and responsibility. This must be done with a campaign to eradicate envy and hatred.
Now Labour will surely not give us this. We all know their centralised mentality, and judging from their recent activity, they continue to put government at the centre of attention and everyday life.
Unfortunately, Labour continues to build on hatred and envy at its grassroots. Labour supporters want the government to assist them from cradle to the grave.
It is the conservatives, those who stick to basic life principles, that can give back basic freedoms to individuals and reduce the role of Big Government. In Anglo-Saxon politics, liberals are often on the same side of conservatives, as is the case of Australia.
By the way, I forgot to attach a quote from Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary:
“A Conservative is one who is enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.”
At the end of the day, guess what both the Conservative and Liberal get?
Who’s taking bets on how long this coalition government will last? – I say till the end of year although it may be as early as July following the EU head of states meeting towards the end of June!
I see this coalition like Joseph’s ‘moderati u progressivi’: it is a monster with two heads.
It will last for 20 months, I’d say.
Or ir may end up with a merger of the Liberal and Conservative parties…
Malta is not exactly a sprawling land like the UK and therefore the centralisation comment must be put into the correct context. If we decentralise much further we will fall into the sea.
Cleggie does not know what hit him yet. In a long weekend he has risen from being a political nonentity to becoming Britain’s deputy PM. Until six weeks ago he was the laughing stock every Wednesday at PM question time in the Commons. You can hardly blame him if he now has delusions of grandeur.
As far as the duration of the coalition, it all depends on the behaviour of the Tory right wing. That is why Cameron’s first move within his parliamentary party was an attempt to neuter the 1922 Committee. News that came in 20 minutes ago says that he has had his way so far.
This does not mean much though. These people are THE power within the Conservative party and can hang Cameron out to dry whenever they decide to do so like they have done with several of his predecessors.
There is no alternative to Labour, right?
Labour was victorious because it had Tony Blair. When Gordon Brown tried to topple him, he signed the party’s death warrant. The conservatives under Margaret Thatcher were phenomenal. Yes, there was sleaze in their ranks and that’s why the men in her cabinet hated her.
Following the Falklands war, and Thatcher’s success in this war, they really hated her guts and they signed their death warrant when they knifed her in the back and removed a great leader from office.
But by then the scandals and sleaze on the Conservative benches were immense and that is why they had to spend all these years sitting pretty in the Opposition benches.
Albert, your question should probably be “There is no alternative to Labour, left?”
You will soon be hearing about Next Labour (David Miliband) (oh, no, not another one) and Next Left (Ed Miliband) (hmmm, wonder what’s around that corner!).
I find it very strange how two siblings, born to and brought up by the same parents, manage to have two diverging views of Labour.
[Daphne – Strange? Siblings are not clones, and even identical twins – who really are genetically identical – have different personalities and attitudes.]
Daphne, remember that while we believe that the Lib-Dems are closer to Labour in their political philosphy than with that of the Tories both Clegg and Cameron are public-school boys. Are these two forging a cabal as Ranier Fsadni seems to suggest, in his article in The Times? I would say so! Would you?
[Daphne – No. David Cameron is pissed off at having to share the limelight, while there’s clearly more to Clegg than meets the eye. Two men can never share a throne. This is not going to be about a coalition and whether that coalition works. It’s going to be about whether two rivals can share personal power for four years. Because really, this isn’t a coalition in the continental way, where the power-sharing is fragmented over several parties. It is about king and king-maker.]
Iddiskutu, tfal, iddiskutu. Still far off the mark, but a slimy politico like Clegg should impress you.
Here’s some sensible reading, but I cannot say it’s for your own good: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100005678/europes-fiscal-fascism-brings-british-withdrawal-ever-closer/
(And don’t bash the journalist – you wouldn’t if you’d known who Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is)
I had stopped buying The Sunday Telegraph because it has a very strong and hysterical anti-EU agenda: in fact, it hates anything which is not “English” and Conservative.
His piece is blinded by anti-EU rhetoric. It was a convoluted argument that had some interesting points (comparisons with 1930s) but in reality he ignored the structural problems in the Mediterranean countries: there is no accountability and that was a major contribution.
The Macchiavellian arguments he makes on European integration are nothing new. I actually agree with them. If anything I hope the European Parliament becomes a stronger counterpoint to the Commission.
I bet he goes to bed every evening weeping at his misfortune of not living under Queen Victoria.
Kev, interesting that you read the Torygraph for your news. Does it have good circulation in Brussels?
Or do you scan the net every day for new posts with the entry “conspiracy”? I spotted the term “conspirators” in Ambrose’s fourth paragraph.
But you do not need to believe every word the pro-Conservatives tell you, including myself.
And who is Ambrose? He sounds like a Eurosceptic. You know the Conservatives have a strong base of Euroscepticm. Having spent some of his time in Brussels, Ambrose probably caught it there.
I am a critic of the EU, which seems to be the political version of what heaven represents to Christians. But then, it is an ideal.
Ambrose’s article is very interesting reading, but there is one word he did not mention: IMF. My understanding is that, for many of the PIGS, it is either the EU Commission and the EU super government (read Germany, if you like), or the IMF.
Britain went to the IMF in 1976 – and it may be obliged to go there again.
Here is one from your friends at The Guardian – they supported the Liberals (did you not say you are a Liberal or Libertarian?):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/23/davidcameron-conservatives
I am not saying Britain is necessarily going to the IMF, or that the British are saving the PIGS (they have had their problems with foot and mouth and mad-cow).
You cannot actually say that Britain is part of the EU. Their failure to join the Euro, which with hindsight may have been a good decision) was a major stand of their Euroscepticism. Even Labour seems to have understood that political sovereignty on the currency is fundamental. But Thatcher was the one who guided Britain about that – see below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I
The truth is: if the PIGS cannot politically control their economies, then either they opt out of the Euro (and hence of the ECB) or else they accept the EU political fiscal union. Britain has always opposed that. The solution may lie in the fiscal union to apply only to the Eurozone – not that this would not have opposition.
It was Thatcher who said something to the effect that Europe has often got itself into a mess, and Britain was then forced to come to save it. Do not underestimate British insight.
We were warned, though, weren’t we? Margaret Thatcher had screamed that the ERM is a “federal Europe through the back door”, and was removed from office for it.
@ Joseph A Borg – What “Machiavellian arguments”? Is Evans-Pritchard scheming for The Prince?
@ Ciccio – No, I don’t “read the Telegraph”. Not as in ‘Karmnu reads It-Torca’ while ‘Nenu reads Il-Mument’. I read everything, for everyone is right and everyone is wrong. You learn something through everyone, even from the bleakest of morons.
‘My friends’ at the Guardian? What gave you the impression I share Joseph Muscat’s distinguished friends, Ciccio?
@ A. Charles, Joseph A Borg and ciccio1810 – The problem is you compartmentalise your politics into tiny red/blue boxes, according to country, such as:
Telegraph = Tories, ergo Eurosceptic = Karmenu, ergo bad.
Your perception of the EU is distorted, romantic and outdated. Your awareness of the mechanisms surrounding monetary and fiscal powers is neolithic. Your insight into the global power structure is both limited and naive.
You denounce all proof that your world-view is an illusion without ever investigating – you wouldn’t even know where to start because your internet reach covers the area of a matchbox in the Louvre.
My advice to you is: explore different pastures, invest some time into something that could give you deeper, wider insight.
Change gear from the usual – cross the pond for a preview of the EU – review the past – visit, for example, the Waco massacre of 1993. Find out what really happened, see how the feds lied through their teeth to cover up a deliberate act of tyranny; see how the media played along, demonising even the 17 children murdered by the federal wolves…
Then explore related videos and read sources. And when you discover that Waco is the order of the day, you’ll be on your way to more fantastic discoveries and the picture becomes clearer and clearer.
So here’s a four-hour investment into your world view:
1. Waco: Rules of Engagement (14 Parts) – watch it as a historical document – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6vrep7k9g
2. Wake Up America or Waco (11 Parts) – watch this anthropologically, keeping away from stereotyping – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHjwXx7mvXs
Kev, I believe that you have a tendency to take criticism a bit seriously, and I hope I am not falling in the same trap. Criticism, especially when it is packaged with some sarcasm, must be fought with the same tone. Something like British humour, especially since you read The Telegraph, which is conservative.
Reading through your comments, are you now suggesting that Ambrose is a “moron”?
As for your internet investigations, I suspect that you are having too much of that. It could be dangerous to your health, you know. A walk in the park and some fresh air would help. Is there any open space in Brussels?
I see you avoided any reference to “conspiracies” this time. Oh, no, but there you go again – the Waco incident. I see you not only crossed the pond, but also the Atlantic. No ash clouds today? What is the EU connection in that case? I admit, I did not watch your video links…
Now, I have compared the EU to heavens, and stated that I agree with Nick that Malta is very centralised. Does that give you the impression that I would cover up for those who suppress human freedoms? Be it the EU or anybody else. In my view, it is the principle that matters, not how many conspiracy videos one watches.
Forget Waco, Ciccio, it’s not for your type.
Here, read these two pieces, written by bad people and badder, unlike Ivan Camilleri, who is good:
The new feudal overlords of Europe will be the bankers of the ECB – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7753298/The-new-feudal-overlords-of-Europe-will-be-the-bankers-of-the-ECB.html
The heresy of the Greeks offers hope, by John Pilger – http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/05/greece-pilger-britain-imf
Kev, thanks for the readings, I will add them to my homework.
On a serious note, same as Ambrose’s, Peter Boone’s and Simon Johnson’s article makes an interesting read. And they do mention the IMF!
They also mention von Hayek, who was one of the economists to inspire Margaret Thatcher’s monetarist policies. As a pro-conservative and a Thatcherite, may I remind you that Thatcher came to power just three years after Britain’s financial crises of 1976, when the Labour government had to resort to the help of the IMF.
Unlike what happened in the past decade, the Conservative government of the 80s and 90s allowed very high interest rates until they curbed inflation, and that government placed controls over public debt. Over the past decade, European and other governments (including the “no more boom to bust” UK Labour government) presided over high inflation (esp. in asset prices) without adequately raising interest rates.
Now, I spoke to people from other countries who ended on the doorstep of the IMF. They mentioned austere measures, and how the IMF practically takes over the government fiscal policy. Not very different from what the ECB may do now. But how else could the ECB (or IMF) control the recovery of the debt taken over? Is that not, to some extent, like a liquidator, or a bankruptcy court, taking over the control of bankrupt companies?
If I understand the ingredients of the solution proposed by Boone and Johnson, they propose the restructuring of the sovereign debt – which to me means writing it off (which is equal to sovereign bankruptcy).
If this happens, there will be a euro devaluation (the markets will take care of that), and a period of high interest rates (European credit risk would be high, and again, the markets will do that). With a weak Euro, we are likely to experience high inflation (expensive imports, such as oil), which in turn will fix the problem of high debt (to the borrowers of course): it reduces the value of the accumulated debt.
But high inflation and high interest rates often result in social unrest. And we get to a scenario not different from that prevailing in Europe before WWII.
It is in that scenario that one would hope there will be EU political leadership that will put the unity of Europe before country interests. But that remains to be seen, of course.
What’s with the long breaks? Is this the way to treat your readers?
[Daphne – If you like, I’ll hire somebody to fill in for me. But then I’d have to charge you.]
Lino Cert, like you I miss Daphne’s comments when she has a break, but let’s be sensible because everybody needs some time off.
It’s not very nice to showcase Malta’s weakness like this, but as regards the UK, I feel rather positive about the coalition at this stage – I won’t be surprised if we do in actual fact get a bit of the best of both philosophies. Cameron did announce that he is a ‘liberal conservative’ but it may just be rhetoric. And provided the necessary safeguards are in place, I welcome a move towards more individual freedom.
Daphne – I hope you might accept that the point of an identity service is to help people identify themselves not expose themselves.
Sadly the UK identity service was not about identity at all.
It was designed to monitor and store every dip into the ID database whatever the source – social service, medical, banking, supermarket purchases – whatever.
[Daphne – I find it quite ridiculous that British electors and politicians make such a god-almighty fuss about identity cards, speaking as though they are the synthesis of 1984’s big brother, when the British population is the most surveilled in the world. You can’t walk down a street without a zillion security cameras filming you without your knowledge. A man disappeared in London a few days ago and his body fished out of the Thames yesterday. The police traced his last hours by picking him up on security camera footage as he walked from bar to tube station to bridge.]
If it had been about identity then the UK government could have beefed up support and access to primary ID sources such as birth certificates, school and exam certificates, national insurance certificates, health certificates — need I go on?
Strong independent sources of identity information can be cross referenced by public and private sectors to help verify ID claims.
It is only by cross referencing strong independent sources that you get some surety in identification. Setting up a single target ID card/database service is the last thing you should do if you are interested in strong identity protection.
Hopefully the new UK government will start to understand this but I suspect they will expire on hard ideas and cash after cancelling the ID service lock stock and damp squib.
There is a difference between ID cards and surveillance camera. With ID cards, the information is already centralised; with surveillance cameras, police have to gather the footage when there is reason to do so. Information that is already centralised is more likely to be abused.
[Daphne – The information available through an identity card (name, date of birth, gender, address) has no potential for abuse. The information available through hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras (where you were at a given time and with whom; where you travelled and which road you took) has huge potential for abuse.]
“Information that is already centralised is more likely to be abused.”
It’s irrelevant whether data storage is centralised or distributed. What we are discussing here is control. Besides, super-fast federated database systems that centralise access to distributed data have been around for years.
Do you know where YouTube stores all its video data? No, you don’t. Yet its website centralises control of its entire library. Click on a link and, within seconds, you’ve got the video.
The data recorded by security cameras may be distributed across thousands of points in the UK. But control of the system is centralised.
Automatic numberplate recognition software has been used in the UK since 1997. It uses the same kind of technology as the software that comes with your off-the-shelf HP scanner. The movements of any car passing in front of one of thousands of ANPR cameras installed all over the UK are stored in a centrally controlled database for five years, cross-referenced with the identity of the car’s owner.
And now tell me that ID cards are a greater threat.
I do not see why you have to be so sceptical about this coalition government in the UK. As Joseph Borg rightly implied earlier, it’s quite possible that the Tories would feel uncomfortable piloting some bills which prima facie seem against the Conservative grain, but which they believe might be actually quite right and timely, and so the LibDems’ input could be most convenient.
After all, many coalitions throughout Europe are composed of parties which, at face value, are at logger-heads with each other – but they have survived, and delivered well, over decades. As to how long this partnership lasts, I would advise you not to hold your breath.
I heard a Labour MP on CNN describe this coalition as ‘a vegetarian working at McDonalds’.
Mrs.D.Caruana Galizia
Good evening.
Would you kindly let me have your email address. It was noted down some time ago but it seems I have misplaced it.
Regards,
Bertie Coppini.
[email protected]
[Daphne – [email protected]]
The Liberal-Democrats will be mauled at the polls in the next election because their natural ally is Labour and not the Tories.
Perhaps we need to define what we mean by centralisation. Clegg should visit Sweden to see how the state literally takes care of everything. In many respects the least centralised with the largest black economies have always been the Mediterranean nations.
I agree with your point. I scoff at Randian libertarianism but am an anarchist at heart who believes in strong government. Go figure!
The best governance is to create the conditions for success. Instead many in management see their role as divine beings issuing diktats, creating a topiary frame to twist and prune a public service into some abstract shape. If you appoint management, let them manage with defined goals and adequate resources. If the government needs to raise taxes to supply the resources needed then so be it.
My impression of Scandinavian countries is that the government has a finger in every pie but doesn’t micro-manage every school, borough and hospital with detailed performance metrics and spurious guidelines that are too detailed to be implemented effectively at the local level.
The UK govt rewards schools with extra funds if they beat other govt sponsored schools. The primary role of school management becomes a fight with the bureaucracy instead of about helping kids climb the social ladder…
I strongly believe, for example, that we are finally moving away from streaming in public schools because we can afford it and we are getting close to the minimum HR pool needed to achieve this. Streaming is the antithesis of an egalitarian democracy but if the resources available are limited it becomes a necessity. Those still advocating streaming should be ashamed of themselves…or get a clue.
All this fuss about ID cards. Apparently in the UK you receive a voting document (no photo) and just turn up to vote. Obviously you can give your vote to anyone to go and vote instead of going yourself. We’d have a field day here in Malta.
A fourteen-year-old boy received a document by mistake and actually went and voted.
I can’t understand how they control things like driving licences, bank transactions, passport applications etc with no IDs.
If Alternativa had got a seat in the last elections we would have had to go through the same saga as the Brits I suppose.
“Cleggie” as in “The Last of the Summer Wine” ?
Perhaps this is the type of briefing the Foreign Office made him read! Not the first time it happened!
Should being the most centralised country in Europe be such a bad thing when we are so small? Hardly. But Maltastar has taken it logistically instead of politically. Clegg referred to political centralisation.
It’s the same when Maltastar quotes Professor Edward Mallia – they can’t understand what he talks about and merely cut-and-paste his comments, without any elucidation.
@OSaNfA:
For this once only: can’t blame Maltastar for copy-pasting Prof. Mallia’s statements. I doubt he understands them himself. Is he a technician, or a politician?
@ Sandra Porter
Alas, one cannot compare Malta and the United Kingdom as Clegg has done. Just look at the size of Malta.
I am quite sure that certain policies would have changed if we were the size of the United Kingdom and had its population and resources. Thinking of it, if Malta was that size and with all that goes with it, and since we are so full of it back here, we would have certainly invaded mainland Europe (all smiles).
One other thing, with what Clegg is insisting on, the man in the street would certainly pay dearly for total de-centralisation.
In this last election, British democracy has proven to be a joke of Third World proportions, only beaten by George Bush’s coup d’etat in his first election.
1) Thousands of people were disenfranchised from voting because not enough ballot papers were available at some polling stations.
2) Yet again, total disproportionate representation with LibDems getting 21% of the vote and 8% of the seats.
3) The LibDems were offered the choice of who to form a government with. This is the root of an unbalanced coalition in the UK. Elsewhere in Europe, it’s the party with the most seats which seeks to form a government. Therefore David Cameron should have been the one to be asked to try to form a government by: a) forming a minority government alone; b) forming a minority government with small party groups; c) forming a majority government with the LIbDems; d) forming a national government with Labour.
If all the above failed it would have been Gordon Brown’s turn to try to form a government, but certainly it never would have been
a party with a mere 50 odd seats out of 650 being given the official capacity of kingmaker.
This is democracy on its head.
No wonder Clegg feels he can call call the shots because he was “institutionalised” as kingmaker – and for good measure he did approach Labour to see if they can better the Conservative offer – what a farce of a democracy!
Democracy is a farce. But can we better it?
Common sense tells you that the party with the most seats seeks to form a government; however, that is not a dogmatic principle in any democracy. Parliaments do not recognise political parties as people vote for individuals to represent them. In a confrontational system like ours and the UK’s the Constitution allows for two group leaders- one to lead the majority of MPs’ support and the other will lead the rest.
In crude terms any elected member may pull himself out of their party gang and ask for support and the successful leader has to become the PM.
After the amendments of our STV (Single Transferable Vote) in 1987 our system became a hybrid and a confused one as although it started to recognise the party votes for fairer and practical reasons the amendment could still be rendered useless after the first sitting of the new assembly.
In our current situation if one MP from the government crosses over to the opposition side Dr. Gonzi would lose his mandate but he can’t call an election and would need to go to the President. The President would then summon Joseph Muscat and ask him whether he has enough support in the house to lead a government.
In the absence of that support the President will dissolve parliament and Dr. Gonzi and his supportive group will stay in office as a caretaker government until the principal electoral commissioner hands the election results to the president.
I stand up to be corrected on some minor details but generally speaking that’s how the system works here as well as in the UK.