UK General Election- May 6th

[notyoueither]

17.18 BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson says the Con-Dem agreement to be announced imminently includes fixed term parliaments, starting now. Which means that there can't be a snap election - this coalition will have to last four years.

Very interesting, if true, and seemingly means Ben doesn't get his wish.

Very good idea. The whole way elections are called and delayed and such in the UK (and most countries) is really strange. There should just be regular elections every x years. Not only will this be a short-term practical benefit but I think it is a positive electoral reform that is a good idea long term.

I don't think that's exactly how it would work.

Assuming party discipline is not always effective there could still be a vote of non confidence and the government could fall resulting in an early election.

There are other shenanigans that could go on as well.

Such a measure would be more effective in a majority situation under normal circumstances.

[BeBMan]

17.18 BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson says the Con-Dem agreement to be announced imminently includes fixed term parliaments, starting now. Which means that there can't be a snap election - this coalition will have to last four years.

What if they split over some issue before the full term's over?

[notyoueither]

If the 4 year term idea is true, then that changes the whole game for Lib Dems...4 years in Government might give them some power to wield for once.

On the other hand, Cabinet reshuffles are going to be a *****! And if they really do come to a loggerheads over a confidence issue...what the **** do they do then?

The government could fall and there would be an election as is usual after a loss of confidence.

Harper passed fixed election date legislation during his first term, and then called an early election on the basis of dead-lock. The opposition majority refused to let the government do anything, but would keep MPs out of the House on confidence issues to avoid triggering an election they did not want for lack of funds.

[Krill]

The government could fall and there would be an election as is usual after a loss of confidence.

Harper passed fixed election date legislation during his first term, and then called an early election on the basis of dead-lock. The opposition majority refused to let the government do anything, but would keep MPs out of the House on confidence issues to avoid triggering an election they did not want for lack of funds.

yeah, I know all that, I'm just trying to figure out how the **** it would fit with fixed term parliaments.

[notyoueither]

It would be mostly effective during majority governments under non-crisis circumstances.

[OzzyKP]

What if they split over some issue before the full term's over?

Well the way they do things over on this side of the pond is that if an issue doesn't have enough votes then they need to compromise with the legislators from the other parties or the issue fails and people move on to the next item on the agenda.

Doesn't seem to be all that terrible or crippling of a system.

[Krill]

Well the way they do things over on this side of the pond is that if an issue doesn't have enough votes then they need to compromise with the legislators from the other parties or the issue fails and people move on to the next item on the agenda.

Doesn't seem to be all that terrible or crippling of a system.

Stop being a ******, or stop posting on **** you don't understand.

Budgets have to be passed every year, failure to do so is a vote of no confidence which leads to the dissolution of parliament.


THIS DOES NOT WORK WITH FIXED TERM PARLIAMENTS.

[notyoueither]

Well the way they do things over on this side of the pond is that if an issue doesn't have enough votes then they need to compromise with the legislators from the other parties or the issue fails and people move on to the next item on the agenda.

Doesn't seem to be all that terrible or crippling of a system.

Actually, on this side of the pond under a parliament with a fixed election date law on the books, there can be elections sooner than the time appointed.

[Krill]

Then what is the ****ing point of fixed term elections? We already have them as fixed for 5 years maximum. how would that be any different to what you have?

[notyoueither]

Then what is the ****ing point of fixed term elections? We already have them as fixed for 5 years maximum. how would that be any different to what you have?

To add pressure to a PM with a majority to not screw around with early or late elections for advantage.

The way it works here is that with all things being equal and normal we'll have an election four years after the previous. However, if there is a minority (or possibly a coalition, or failure of discipline) we can easily have an early election.

[Wezil]

We tried a fixed date election law. Didn't work.

edit - Sorry NYE. I see you addressed our example.

[Krill]

So, basically, it is tactically the same as our version.

[notyoueither]

We had exactly what you have now (I assume, more or less).

We added fixed date elections in 2007 and then promptly had an early election in 2008 due to minority politics. The same parliament that passed the law was dissolved early. This welcomed some comment. Heh.

[Wezil]

I haven't seen your version tbo, but it is difficult to make work in minority situations.

The gov will claim "obstructionist opposition" and the Opposition points out the minority status of the gov as reasons why they must compromise too. End result - election.

[epmd]

This is why British politics are confusing.



How the hell is Labour closer to the BNP than the Tories???