BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Coalition government creates a more honest and dynamic political system, allowing voters a clearer c...

Coalition government is less transparent. Because a party has no real chance of forming a government alone, the manifestos they present to the public become irrelevant and often wildly unrealistic. Real decisions about political programmes are made after the election, in a process of secretive back-room negotiation from which the public is excluded. This undermines accountability, as voters cannot expect individual parties in a coalition to deliver upon their particular manifesto promises, unlike the single-party governments in the USA and (usually) the UK. Accountability is also absent when a coalition government falls, either after an election or through the defection of some of its supporters. Any new administration will tend to include most of the parties and politicians from the previous government, with just a little shuffling of coalition partners and ministerial jobs.
Coalition government creates a more honest and dynamic political system, allowing voters a clearer c...

Coalition government creates a more honest and dynamic political system, allowing voters a clearer choice at election time. In countries where coalition government is very rare, such as the UK or USA, the main parties straddle a wide spectrum of opinion and can be seen as coalitions of competing interest groups and ideologies. At elections, however, such parties present themselves, perhaps fraudulently, to voters as united behind particular views and policies, whereas in power their internal divisions may have a serious, and often unseen, impact upon decision-making. In countries with coalition governments the greater number of political parties gives the voter a more honest choice and brings differences of opinion out into the open for debate. It is also easier for parties to split, or new ones to be formed, as new political issues divide opinion, because new parties still have a chance of a share in political power.
Coalitions provide good government because their decisions are made in the interests of a majority o...

Coalitions provide bad government because they are unable to take a long-term view. Sometimes an ideological compass is necessary for governments to navigate in difficult political and economic waters, and coalitions lack such a unifying philosophy. In addition planning for the long-term often requires decisions to be made that are unpopular in the short-term. Coalitions often fail such tests because temporary unpopularity may encourage one of the parties involved to defect, in search of a populist advantage. It might be agreed that sometimes exceptional circumstances, such as war, require a coalition government (although the USA did not have one in either World War). This does not mean that such governments are better in normal conditions. Major constitutional decisions are better dealt with through referenda.
Coalitions provide good government because their decisions are made in the interests of a majority o...

Coalitions provide good government because their decisions are made in the interests of a majority of the people. Because a wide consensus of opinion is involved, any policy will be debated thoroughly within the government before it is implemented. Single-party government is much more likely to impose badly thought-out policies upon parliament and people, perhaps for narrowly ideological reasons (for example, the poll tax in the UK). When difficult or historic decisions have to be taken, for example in wartime, over membership of the European Union or NATO, or on the scale of spending cuts needed to deal with the UK's budget deficit, the consent of politicians representing a wide range of interests and opinion is important in committing the country and its people to difficult but necessary courses of action.
Coalition government provides more continuity in administration. In countries without a tradition o...

Coalition governments are very unstable, often collapsing and reforming at frequent intervals – Italy, for example, averages more than one government per year since 1945. This greatly restricts the ability of governments to deal with major reforms and means that politicians seldom stay in any particular ministerial post for long enough to get to grips with its demands. At the same time, this squabbling between political parties erodes the confidence of the public in their political system and in their elected representatives. Finally, evern forming coalitions can take so long that a country may drift along for months with caretaker governments that lack authority - both the Czech Republic and Belgium took over six months to negotiate new governing coalitions after their last elections.
Coalition government provides more continuity in administration. In countries without a tradition o...

Coalition government provides more continuity in administration. In countries without a tradition of coalition governments, parties can remain in government or opposition for long periods, and an adversarial political culture develops. When a change does occur, the members of the new administration seldom have any experience of government to draw upon, and often embark upon a wholesale reversal of the previous regime’s policies; neither of these things is in the public interest. In states with coalition politics, however, there are usually at least some ministers with considerable experience under the previous government. A more consensual style of politics also allows for a more gradual and constructive shift of policy between administrations.
In politics things get taken out of context

Correct, it is the aim of the game in politics to use anything your opposition says against them. However, as a public figure, knowing that people will be eager to adjust the meaning of your phraseology in such a way should mean that politicians are all the more careful and aware of their choice of words and how they express their points. The apology required then was not for the immorality of the content of what was said, but for the stupidity in saying something innocent in a way which could be twisted. It is the role of a public figure to maintain face, and in failing to do Howard Flight did not comply with his duties of employment, and this indeed could be a reason for dismissal [[http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_175834]].
Freedom of Speech

In situations like this where a person loses their job for saying the wrong things, i believe that it depends on how bad the situation is. It really depends on how a person defines "wrong." I believe that everyone in the world has a different mindset. Each one has their own way of thinking just like how everyone has a different way of life. If an employee wasn't able to state his or her opinion on something or just saying whatever they want to say in general, then i think that it takes away their freedom of speech. Here in America, the Amendment 1, which has freedom of speech is one of the most important things. I believe that people shouldn't be scared to voice their opinion. No one can really define what wrong is, sometimes it's usually an unpopular vote and one loses his or her job from it. But if in situations where an employee should stand up for themselves then i don't believe it's wrong. Maybe in the company's eyes it's wrong because they might get a bad reputaion from it, but at the same time what if it's something that is right in other people's eyes. Yes, we do represent a company when we are employed with them and we as employers have to always watch what we say and do because it might hurt the company's name. The thing is, we shouldn't go to the extend of it when we put ourselves in a situation where we believe something else. We need to stand up for ourselves and not be afraid of getting punished because our beliefs are different and whatever we say might be wrong to others but to us it's not. Basically, i say that when in situations where we need to stand up for our values, beliefs, morals, and things that we know are right in our eyes then it really shouldn't matter if we get fired. But when in situations like this, i don't believe that people should lose their jobs for standing up and stating their opinions whether it is right or wrong. Everyone has a right to Freedom of Speech especially here in the United States of America.
Supporting an employee after such a statement could imply agreement by the employer

Free speech is separate from job performance. Actions should speak louder than but in the today's international media cluster dynamic; image and quotes have precedence over real work and actual effort. Glenn Hoddle was a good coach and the fact that he was sacked had nothing whatsoever do with Football or his skills as a coach. It was centered on the stress placed on image in almost everything. Sponsors,advertising revenue and therefore image is what almost every field stands on today; rather than talent or the love of the game. This is a sad fact. The integrity and value of work needs to be reinstated in jobs that are constantly under media watch. Voltaire "I wholly disagree with what you are saying but will defend to the death your right to say it"
it breaks down the relationship of employment

When problems are voiced; problems are resolved. Whether complaining will work for an employee depends upon the importance of that worker in his/her workplace/office/company. Some employees are easily dispensable; as in temp jobs; here workers should be extra-careful not to complain to avoid getting sacked. Other jobs require a rarer skill set that is harder to replace. If an employee with these skills does not complain then his/her work will suffer and the boss will be unhappier. However if s/he does then the boss can do something to address the employee's issues and both the boss and worker will be happier/better-served.
serious negligence which causes unacceptable loss, damage or injury

Negligence is the careless breach of a duty. Therefore, in order to be negligent, you must owe a duty. The issue here is that outside of work, normal employees do not owe any duty to their employer. We can see how politicians do and other public figures, and so perhaps they can be sacked for breaching such a duty. However, a regular Jo employee owes no such duty to maintain the employees reputation. If there is no duty, there can be no breach of that duty and therefore gross misconduct does not apply.
Yes, it is against the law.

In situations where you go to spend your whole day of work, you should be able to feel comfortable. Sometimes, saying the wrong thing could be harrasment. Depending on the situation, if an employee doesn't appreciate what another employee says to them that seems offending and makes them uncomfortable then that basically could mean harrasment. In companys today, a lot of people lose their jobs from saying the wrong things, which is a lot of times related to sexual harrasment. When your work place becomes a place where you don't feel safe or want to go to anymore dealing with harrasments and all then yes it is okay for people to lose their jobs from saying the wrong things that could lead an employee to feeling uncomfortable. Just like saying offending things about someone's race is just as bad as harrassing someone at work. I know of people that lose their jobs from saying and doing the wrong things at work. Sometimes, one employee could not appreciate what you say but the other employee keeps saying it, that could get you in big trouble especially if you know that the person doesn't appreciate it. If an employee is married, and a co-worker has a crush on that employee and tries to get involved with her by saying things that could imply to her that he is trying and already knows that she is married and doesn't appreciate it then that is harrasment. If these kinds of things happen and no one corrects the employee that was doing and saying all the wrong things then that would just give the company a bad name and it would also cause the workers to not want to work at a company like that. All employees want to work at a place where they feel safe and comfortable. Also, employees like jobs that actually show that they care about them. That when they get into situations like sexual harrasment and all that the company will do anything in their power to help them feel safe. So i believe that when situations like sexual harrasment is involved or major things dealing with racial and negative things that offend people and could make a company's reputation go bad then yes people should lose their jobs for saying and doing the wrong things.
In politics things get taken out of context

It is the name of the game in politics to twist words and to ensure the maker of any statement in the opposition party looks bad to the public. This is what Labour did with Tory peer Howard Flight. Howard Flight We're going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it's jolly expensive, but for those on benefit there is every incentive. Well that's not very sensible Labour MP's cried 'eugenics' and the public embarrassment followed. Lord Howard had to apologise to David Cameron. But if we look at the comment, it is nothing to do with encouraging the breeding of one class over the other! It is stating that if we lower benefits per child then people will have more children to get more money! This is not eugenics but an observation of social trends. It was the opposition party who turned this innocent comment into a more serious breach of human compassion. But Howard Flight should not have felt the wrath for that.
Supporting an employee after such a statement could imply agreement by the employer

If an employer continues to employ an employee after they have made an embarrassing statement, or an offensive statement, they may be seen as impliedly agreeing with such a statement. This is not something that employers want to linger over their reputation. For example, Glen Hoddle in his epic statement of disabled people being born disabled due to karma from their previous life[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11845363]]. If FIFA continued to allow Glenn Hoddle to coach England, they would be impliedly accepting that his comments were acceptable! Even if they were to give a warning or a disciplinary, people would see this as a light punishment and a sign that FIFA did not take the comment seriously and did not administer the appropriate punishment. In order for the employer to maintain their reputation, sometimes sacking an employee is the only way to appease the public.
it can ruin employer reputation

If an employee espouses that their workplace has poor working conditions or a bad Human Resources Department it is bad news for the employer. Their reputation is damaged. This would lead to less people being interested in working for them and less customers or suppliers would be willing to trade with the employer. In these circumstances, where the conduct of the employee has had such a detrimental effect on the employers business, we cannot be surprised that that employee gets the sack. It amounts to gross misconduct.
it breaks down the relationship of employment

Gross misconduct is AP Business Solutions considered to be misconduct serious enough to destroy the contract between employer and employee and irretrievably break down the working relationship and trust between them . If an employee complains about their working conditions, how can the relationship continue as it was? How can there be any trust. If the employer knows that the employee is not happy, they will know that they are not working to their best level and will constantly be asking them to do more. This will heighten the troubled nature of the relationship and the employer should be able to sack the employee in respect of that.
serious negligence which causes unacceptable loss, damage or injury

The Acas Code of Practice lays down policies that employers are to comply with. As with regards to misconduct, the code states that serious negligence which amounts to loss, damage or injury is to be regarded as gross misconduct[[http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=919]]. If an employee complains about their work place on a social website, open for customers and potential employees to see, the employee is guilty of this. Even if said as a joke, or off the cuff, their carelessness caused the company financial loss and reputational injury. This then would be enough to amount to gross misconduct and therefore employees could be sacked without notice for such conduct.
Yes, people should be accountable for what they say if it's inappropriate.

Yes, i believe that people should be accountable for what they say or do if it's inappropriate. It is very unprofessional and it would cause a bad name for the company. As a professional employee we tend to forget that when we are employed we not only represent ourselves but we also represent the company and the employer. Also, professional employees need to remember that being professional means that in any situation it is not appropriate to say anything that would offend other employees or customers. Sometimes, employees take their personal lives to work and it sometimes cause problems to arise. There are employees who try to find other co-workers to confide in and it ends up leaking out to other co-workers and rumors spread and then problems occur. These are sometimes what causes people to say things that are wrong or shouldn't be said at all. Being humans, we tend to say things without thinking about it. Sometimes we think we are helping with the problem but we just end up making it worse. For example, from personal experience, Sam's Club is a really great place to work. You learn a lot from working there, at least i did from working in the jewelry department. But the big problem over there is people tend to get in trouble by saying things that are wrong. Like, spreading rumors about people or just saying something offending to a co-worker gets you in trouble. Especially if it deals with that persons race, religion, and anything that could offend that person. One of my co-workers was jokingly talking about the stereotypes of another country not knowing that the co-worker in the same room was from there and it offended her. The guy that made the joke got written up and got a warning. I honestly believe that it is wrong to say things that could be offending because everyone has feelings and if it's too the extreme of making someone not wanting to come back to work or something that would make the company's reputation bad then yes i believe that people should lose their jobs for it.
Redistributing wealth to balance the inequality of income disparity

We've tried implementing very high rates of income tax many times before. In fact, the top rate of income tax has usually been dramatically higher than it is now.[[http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php]]The reason most market-based economies have rejected high rates of income tax is because they don't work. They do not resolve problems of social unrest, do not create more equality and do not create a more stable society. In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics violent crime has been falling since 1994 and reached its lowest ever level in 2005.[[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm]]It has always been easy for people with money to make more of it, that's why the rich get richer. We don't solve the problem by making the rich poorer - we solve it by making the poor richer, by giving them every opportunity to enrich themselves and by levelling the opportunity playing field. Even countries such as Sweden, long held as a bastion of the benefits of high taxes has its problems. A Swedish research paper from 2005 examined the efficiency of the public sector in 23 industrialised countries. Sweden comes absolute last on the list when the level of welfare provided is related to the level of taxation made. In the US New Hampshire is a good illustration that high taxes are not needed for good public services it has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Although New Hampshire spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state New Hampshire’s public schools have the fourth-highest test results in the US. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet has the second-lowest test scores.[[ Arthur B. Laffer, The Laffer Curve, Past, Present, and Future, The Heritage Foundation, 1st June 2004, http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1765.cfm#pgfId-1118367%5D%5D What tends to happen in countries with high income taxes is bureaucracy rises and when bureaucracy rises efficiency falls. The government is quite simply not as good at spending our money as we are and in order to solve social problems such as inequality it is spectacularly ineffective. We need government for some things such as schools, roads, the police and so on. But the best government is a small government, one that protects people from harm and focuses on creating the most entrepreneurial, problem-solving society it can. Not by raising taxes to the roof.
Principles of allocating the burden of taxation in society

Rich people already pay a disproportionately large amount into the exchequer. Someone earning $250,000 a year and paying a top rate of 40% income tax contributes around $100,000 a year in taxes. This is significantly more than the poorer individual. Moreover, they actually take less out of the state. Rich people often have private healthcare, so no burden on the state there. They'll educate their children privately, at no cost to the state, they don't need free legal care, free transport, free meals or any of the other services their taxes pay for. Rich people also tend to spend a lot more money too. They’ll buy products or services from the country they live in, so providing more income for the state. Even if they buy products made overseas the sales taxes bring money into the exchequer. Rich people are not sources of money we can just tap whenever we feel like it. In fact, we should remember the parable of the man who killed the golden goose. If nurtured correctly the goose could have continued giving for many years. But greed took over and greed caused the source of income to dry up. Don’t be greedy.