If there is a fear by Ecuador and Assange of being sent to a second locale - the USA - why not just ship him to Ecuador and be done with it?

It looks like the UK is sticking with their agreement with Sweden. But from your other OP, their case is in disarray as the have lost the prosecutor, IIRC.

Waiting to 2015 for the chance of an election result that is not a sure thing, seems like bad news for Assange.

One question for those who are in the know - I'm guessing the mysterious title of the 'shadow government' is just the British way of saying minority party as we have here?

Would that make the GOP the shadow government in the Senate and the Democrats the shadow government in the House of Representatives?

Although the Koch brothers seem to be the American shadow government, IMO.

So you get the 'shadow transport secretary', 'shadow energy secretary', etc., who are the most senior members of the opposition for those areas. Collectively, they are 'the shadow cabinet'. We don't say 'shadow government', however; it's just 'the opposition'.

Our system is a winner take all one which disenfranchises the opposition and leaves them without any say except to fight anything the majority does. This led to bitter partisanship in the past and the inability to get anything done as a whole. We're stuck in this because we can't change the Constitutional functions of these chambers.

Thanks for the information, but I have another question. For example, would the 'shadow energy secretary' actually have any authority to affect policy?

The party gets a certain amount of parliamentary time on which it can decide the topic of debate, and can introduce a certain amount of bills (though those won't succeed unless they get government support, or are on non-party issues). The shadow <x> secretary will be given time to speak in debates on their area. The media will go to them for any response to a government policy, and they'll issue their own party's proposals.

It's a bit different from the USA because the cabinet members are all in parliament too (nearly all in the Commons, though one or two are in the House of Lords), and so it seems the right thing to name opposition equivalents there too - just as the USA has minority leaders to match majority leaders, minority whips for majority whips and so on.

the votes or parties have shifted or are deadlocked as we are here so much?

The 'vote of no confidence' would seem to be non-binding. I don't think we have anything equal to that. I used to enjoy watching the 'Ask the PM' or whatever it was on PBS each week while Blair was there. He was quick and glib to answer anything.

He came over here to talk to the Congress and had them panting at his feet. And we all know how that worked out in the end. I saw Galloway give the GOP hell later. While the English speeches, questions and answers were refreshing, it didn't change what was going on here. Congress was run like a circus and it still is. I can't bear to listen to any of these windbags now.

The 'government falls' always sounds so dramatic, but the use of the language is different. If the USA 'government falls' it would be havoc and the GOP seems to want that to happen. The Tea Party and Fox News just love to rant on about a civil war or revolt. Since we're 'armed to the teeth' or 'to the death,' literally, here, it really gets attention.

I appreciate your time here and have another question - is money from individuals or corporations a factor in the elections there?

In theory, the Queen's advisers could suggest that another person become Prime Minister and form a new cabinet and government, if they would have the backing of a majority of the House of Commons; but in British politics that has been very rare, I think (other parliamentary systems, with frequent coalitions because their elections are more proportional, have had that, I think). Normally the fall of a government means a new general election, for all seats in the Commons.

We don't get the same kind of deadlocks as the USA. A vote in the Commons only ever needs a simple majority of votes cast, and MPs vote pretty consistently with their party. You can occasionally get a situation where the Commons passes a bill, and the Lords refuses to do so. There are conventions on that - the Lords can't block a fiscal bill, and if they do block a bill, and then there's a general election and the winning party put the proposal in their manifesto for the election, then the Lords have to let it through. The Lords are now mainly appointees for life; a significant part are not attached to any party ('cross-benchers'), so the Lords blocking something tends not to be on a simple 'left-right' argument.

Money is a factor in elections, but nowhere near as much as in the US. Political TV adverts are banned, and there are limits on how much each candidate can spend in their constituency (which are tiny, compared with what gets spent in US elections). Poster campaigns are allowed, so there's an advantage to having the money to do that nationwide. Corporations used to put a lot into the Conservatives, but not so much now; I think there were some changes about having to get shareholder approval, but Tony Blair also made Labour look more attractive to business. Labour unions still donate to Labour, but, since Blair, not as enthusiastically. Individual donations are a large part of funding campaigns, and there were some scandals about it - hidden 'loans' to Labour that weren't declared in the way donations had to be, a major donor to the Lib Dems who turned out to be a crook, and a Tory peer who kept promising he'd pay his full UK taxes, but instead kept his money abroad, and paid no UK tax, but nevertheless donated millions to them (he had a lot of power in the party, but they've now had to remove him from any official position in it, because he's not resident in the UK).

Energy Critic, Education Critic etc are members of the Official Opposition who would be like shadow ministers.

Sid

the Ecuadorian embassy got legal advice regarding forward extradition, and their legal adviser told them that forward extradition would simply be impossible unless May waived specialty

2. The claim, that the Swedish prosecutor in the Assange case had stepped down or had been removed, came from an Australian media source, and if you re-examine the excerpt I posted, you will see that the Swedes denied the Australian report and said that Ny was still in charge of the investigation

I understand the conflicting news stories, but thought the Australian source wouldn't just 'make something up' and that the Swedes were in disarray. There was a post of Swedes being accused of taking their PC on women too far; another one that said they had the highest rate of rapes in Europe. Due to the PC or the actual acts themselves is open to interpretation but I didn't want to get into that subject.

At this point, this bold attempt to resolve the question of AJ's extradition appears to be at standstill. Assange may be in that apartment for a long time.

It disturbed me that the party not in power is discussing trade or these matters of state when they are not currently elected to make those decisions. The October Surprise with the GOP negotiations during the Iranian hostage crisis was used to catapult Reagan into office. It seems improper to me. Now

I'm wondering if this is going on with governments all the time behind closed doors. That fits with the 'trade agreements' which NGOs negotiate that are not accountable to the public. High school civics and college political science classes don't tell the whole story.

The way this article was written mentioning the USA gives fuel to those who believe the evil Obama is gunning for Julian. I don't even know why it was brought up, maybe Ecuador needs to speak to Swedish officials directly to make use of their authority over his custody. Because he is in their power and they have elections soon.

As long as Assange denies the UK government with Ecuador's assistasnce, this is just going to go on and on. Staying there until 2015 or even longer is a lot like being in jail. He needs to make a deal with Sweden.

would need to waive specialty ..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/30/ecuador-julian-assange-labour

The link in that sentence in the Guardian article goes back to an aricle from last July, which refers to advice the Ecuadorians obtained from one of their own advisers:

Moreover Theresa May, as the current home secretary, is quite unlikely to have been in the meeting between the Ecuadorians and the UK opposition

considering Sweden has international law on its side, it should be an easy choice for the Brits.

for a year and a half, before Mr Assange decided to jump bail, instead of pursuing his next available appeal, so the extradition is backed by the UK courts and UK law

Moreover, the theory, used to justify hiding in the embassy, that Assange faces some forward extradition from Sweden, with some attending threat to his life, is one that Assange's lawyers declined in advance in the UK courts, after one of Assange's own witnesses described the scenario as being essentially impossible. Having decided not to advance this argument in the extradition case, he has, from the point of view of English law, lost legal use of the claim. The claim moreover ignores existing treaties binding the UK and Sweden, and it assumes facts not in evidence: no one in the legal profession really gives it any credibility, except various opportunists who have attached themselves to the Assange matter for purposes of publicity and self-promotion

They want to get him out of their embassy!

wearing a bathrobe, drinking coffee, and pontificating to anyone who will listen about the evil Swedes, Brits, and Americans.

The Ecuadorian embassy staffers have my sympathies.

One wonders if those getting a big laugh would also be yukking it up if Earl and Skinner were one day persecuted for printing a scoop that a government didn't want them to because it was embarrassing and exposed crimes.

and instead jumped bail and went into hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy

So far as I know, the only legal issue he has faced in the UK was the Swedish extradition case, which he lost, though it seems likely to me that he may in the future face further legal action in the UK for violation of the bail act. Neither of these UK matters concerns release of government documents

And, so far as I know, the only legal issues he faces in the UK involve complaints of sexual misconduct. He suddenly left Sweden when prosecutors made clear to his lawyer that he was likely to be taken into custody for further interrogation regarding the complaints. The Swedish matter does not concern release of government documents

If there is any reason to think any of the DU Administrators presently face extradition on complaints of sexual misconduct, I myself am completely unaware of it; I see no cause whatsoever to anticipate such proceedings; and I would suggest that we can all safely defer from speculating on such hypotheticals

In spite of all your hyperbole, you and I know you are not so naive as to think this is all about a sexual misconduct case.

So why do you respond to my post? I can only take it as you defending the chortlers who find it amusing to watch someone have to hold up in an embassy for fear of the possibility of being sent away and put to death in a foreign country for publishing important information to the public.

by Mr Assange to a higher Swedish court. The Swedes then asked for extradition from the UK; Assange fought the extradition in the UK courts for a year and a half, losing the original case and several appeals. He then jumped bail and failed to file the next appeal available to him. Neither Sweden nor the UK has any recent reputation as having a corrupt or unfair judiciary. The proper view is therefore that Assange is a fugitive from justice, who once apprehended will properly be extradited to Sweden for prosecution there. I feel confident that the Swedish judiciary will be able to sort matters out properly, once Assange is in Swedish custody. I (of course) have no opinion whatsoever regarding what should or will be the outcome of Swedish proceedings, since that determination belongs entirely to the Swedish courts

You really are that naive.

innuendo and name-calling are a poor substitute for reasoned analysis and simply won't help us understand the world in a useful fashion