UK General Election

dudalb said:
I think May is a jerk doing a lame Maggie Thacther imitation,but calling her a dictator is really over the top.
Yeah, she is gaming the system. That means the system needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

It was, fixed 5 year terms were introduced to avoid this type of game playing, May actually needs to get parliament to vote to scrap the rule, which it appears they are happy to do.
 
The alternative is to have a confidence motion, and for the Tories to vote that they have no confidence in HM Government. That would at least have the benefit of being rather amusing.
 
MikeG said:
Was it too much to expect that you read the bit I quoted, and understand that my response was to that, and not to the point you are making now and also made previously? There will be no "two months lost", despite your claim.

Now, I accept your general point, reiterated in the above quote about it making no difference to the "hardness" of Brexit. How about you accept that you were wrong in asserting there would be any lost negotiating time, and that this is what I was referring to in the post you were so snide about?
Click to expand...
Except I made no such claim! I was pointing out that the argument about whether there would be 'lost time' was academic as it would have no bearing on the outcome! And frankly I'm wasting no more time on this.
 
MikeG said:
We're not disputing that. We're disputing that seeking to have the best majority you can, is, without the hyperbole, undemocratic. I contend that it isn't, provided all your actions to achieve that end are democratic and follow centuries of convention. I can't see a problem with what May is doing in this regard.
Click to expand...
What she's doing is democratic and according to the law. However, that quote shows she's not a democrat at heart and has disdain for parliament, as Garrison put it well.

BTW, those centuries of convention were explicitly abrogated with the Fixed-term Parliaments act of 2011.
 
MikeG said:
I doubt any MPs enjoy the prospect of a GE!
Click to expand...
Some may like campaigning. Some may be very confident of their seat. For instance, Corbyn himself has had his seat since 1983, with large margins. There are plenty of Labour seats, though, where the MPs may tremble for their prospects. It may be more honourable for a Labour candidate to run in a constituency they never won than one with a 5% margin.
 
bluesjnr said:
Just listened to Corbyns statement om Radio2. Not much I can say about it, it's hardly inspiring.
Click to expand...

Seems like his staff told him 'Try and smile this time, sound upbeat rather than a miserable bore'. He's clearly not used to it so it looked like he was being shocked by electricity.
 
ddt said:
What she's doing is democratic and according to the law. However, that quote shows she's not a democrat at heart and has disdain for parliament, as Garrison put it well.
Click to expand...


She's using the democratic system to achieve an undemocratic end, that is avoid any serious scrutiny of her policies. She wants to drown any opposition in her own party under a tide of newbie backbenchers who will just do as they are told. She's going to use a victory over a shambolic opposition as a mandate to push through whatever policy she pleases, not counting those where she can use the 'Great Repeal Bill' to avoid any scrutiny to begin with.


BTW, those centuries of convention were explicitly abrogated with the Fixed-term Parliaments act of 2011.
Click to expand...

Which was a case of the right thing done for the wrong reasons. At the time it really meant tying the Lib-Dems to the coalition government, but it was a sound plan.
 
Garrison said:
It was, fixed 5 year terms were introduced to avoid this type of game playing, May actually needs to get parliament to vote to scrap the rule, which it appears they are happy to do.
Click to expand...

They don't need to scrap the rule. The act allows for early elections when (from wiki):

------------------------------------------------------
Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:

If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government"...

If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

-----------------------------------------------------------

The second way (which, for the moment, requires Labour's support) is what is being done.

It's not undemocratic and it's totally within the law.
 
Doesn't this highlight how utterly pointless the fixed term parliament act was? What opposition party is going to vote against the government calling an election?
 
MikeG said:
The alternative is to have a confidence motion, and for the Tories to vote that they have no confidence in HM Government. That would at least have the benefit of being rather amusing.
Click to expand...
That's not unheard of. In Germany, Kohl pulled that trick in 1982 when he had just come to power:
On 1 October 1982, the CDU proposed a constructive vote of no confidence which was supported by the FDP. The motion carried. Three days later, the Bundestag voted in a new CDU/CSU-FDP coalition cabinet, with Kohl as chancellor. Many of the important details of the new coalition had been hammered out on 20 September, though minor details were reportedly still being hammered out as the vote took place. Though Kohl's election was done according to the Basic Law, it came amid some controversy. The FDP had fought its 1980 campaign on the side of the SPD and even placed Chancellor Schmidt on some of their campaign posters. There were also doubts that the new government had the support of a majority of the people. In answer, the new government aimed at new elections at the earliest possible date. Polls suggested that a clear majority was indeed in reach. As the Basic Law only allows the dissolution of parliament after an unsuccessful confidence motion, Kohl had to take another controversial move: he called for a confidence vote only a month after being sworn in, in which members of his coalition abstained. President Karl Carstens then dissolved the Bundestag and called new elections.
Click to expand...

ETA: and so did Willy Brandt in 1972 and Gerhard Schröder in 2005, in all three cases deliberately designed to be lost and to trigger new elections.
 
Last edited:
My constituency - at least until the boundary changes take effect - is the 17th least safe Labour seat with a winning margin of 1883 votes/3.6%. But it will be a straight fight between Labour and Tory; in 2015 both the LibDem and the Green candidate lost their deposits. I would normally vote LibDem but I may tactically vote Labour to try to keep this seat from going Tory. When I lived just half a mile away from where I do now, I had a LibDem MP!

I suspect the big question will be where the UKIP voters go to now that they have achieved their objective.
 
Giz said:
The second way (which, for the moment, requires Labour's support) is what is being done.

It's not undemocratic and it's totally within the law.
Click to expand...

It's being done for an undemocratic purpose and If Labour weren't so supine they would force May to carry on with a limited majority.

Undesired Walrus said:
Doesn't this highlight how utterly pointless the fixed term parliament act was? What opposition party is going to vote against the government calling an election?
Click to expand...

Actually this is precisely the situation where they should have done so. They are going to trade in a weak May government for a strong one. Not to mention imagine the unlikely scenario where Labour wins, then the Tories get to stick them with the blame for every catastrophe Brexit brings, winning this election would be a poison chalice. Smart play was to stand by the rules.
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
Doesn't this highlight how utterly pointless the fixed term parliament act was? What opposition party is going to vote against the government calling an election?
Click to expand...

It was never about the opposition. It was brought in as a way of preventing either party in the coalition from bringing the government down. It was a Lib Dem requirement prior to entering the coalition.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Doesn't this highlight how utterly pointless the fixed term parliament act was? What opposition party is going to vote against the government calling an election?
Click to expand...
You would think that an opposition party that is in disarray, is confused over its leadership, and is way down in the polls, would rather wait until the planned date for the next election so that they can get their ducks in a row.
 
Garrison said:
It's being done for an undemocratic purpose and If Labour weren't so supine they would force May to carry on with a limited majority.
Click to expand...

Right. Going to the electorate to ask for a mandate is undemocratic.

Do you know what demos means?
 
Agatha said:
.......I suspect the big question will be where the UKIP voters go to now that they have achieved their objective.
Click to expand...

Some will return to the Tories, and some will stay with UKIP. Ukip will lose lots of votes to the Tories as a result of Brexit, but might gain a few from Labour because of Brexit.
 
ddt said:
You would think that an opposition party that is in disarray, is confused over its leadership, and is way down in the polls, would rather wait until the planned date for the next election so that they can get their ducks in a row.
Click to expand...

You think they'd have any ducks left in 3 years time? :)
 
MikeG said:
It was never about the opposition. It was brought in as a way of preventing either party in the coalition from bringing the government down. It was a Lib Dem requirement prior to entering the coalition.
Click to expand...



That's fine but was pushed as being about preventing these situations


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom