We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Fixed Term Elections

24

Comments

  • Radiantsoul
    Radiantsoul Posts: 2,096 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I think elections should be every three or four years. Five years is probably too long.
    I can't see why a parliament ought not to be able to vote itself out on a simple majority if a parliament is capable of passing legislation that spends our money on the same basis.
  • Really2
    Really2 Posts: 12,397 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 13 May 2010 at 11:07PM
    bioboybill wrote: »
    However, you did clearly say above that you are happy for the new government to rig things to keep the Lib Dems locked in and to keep the Tories in power.

    Did I? I said I understand why they did it and I am not the only one. (so that's 2 false statements you have made on this thread about me so far)

    I would say read rather than read what you want.
    Really2 wrote: »
    I totally agree, it is a signal to the markets that we will have a stable government (all going well) for the full term.

    If it was not there, there was an obvious achilles heel to the government stability.

    Each time I have said stable government?

    If you want an unstable government now with the economic crisis we are in you are either a fool or a masochist.
  • Malcolm.
    Malcolm. Posts: 1,079 Forumite
    edited 13 May 2010 at 11:51PM
    Like the 55% change or not. The libdems and conservatives are governing with over 50% of the vote, the decisions they make arguably have a stronger mandate than those of the former labour government, who bankrupted the country with 36% of the popular vote.
  • Sir_Humphrey
    Sir_Humphrey Posts: 1,978 Forumite
    I've already explained why this is a stupid idea, and I would not be surprised if the Lords chucked it out.
    Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith
  • tomterm8
    tomterm8 Posts: 5,892 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    JasonLVC wrote: »
    There's already some threads doing the rounds on this subject....

    .....but no-one seems to be complaining that the predominantly Labour/left wing Welsh and Scottish assemblies operate under a 2/3rds (66%) vote of no confidence basis.

    Anyone would think they designed it so they could never be ousted?

    Because the Scottish Assembly does not operate under a 2/3rds vote of no confidence basis. Vote of no confidence is same as westminster. The scottish Assembly works under a 2/3rds dissolution basis. You can get rid of the government with a simple majority... if you can't form a new government in 28 days there is another election.
    “The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
    ― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    bioboybill wrote: »
    So the new LibCon Government are bringing in fixed term elections. When I heard that I thought, "Good idea". Then I saw the sting in the tail. The election could be called earlier if the government lose a confidence vote where the "no confidence" side get 55% of the vote!

    Yes, that's right. Previously a government could lose a confidence vote by just one vote but now this new government are tipping the scales in their favour. Assuming the Conservatives win the Thirsk and Malton by-election on May 27th they will have 307 seats, which is 47% of the seats. In other words even if they fall out with Clegg and Co they couldn't be forced to the polls under these new rules.

    This hasn't been widely reported (I saw a 60 second report on the BBC yesterday where a consitutional expert said the government could be accused of queering the pitch and a mention in the Daily Mirror this morning).

    Surely even the most ardent Conservative supporters wouls agree that this is breathtaking hypocrisy and simply wrong?

    This is a lot of hot air about nothing. The 55% threshold is necessary in order to preserve a stable government throughout the 5 year term. I agree with the measure.
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    I've already explained why this is a stupid idea, and I would not be surprised if the Lords chucked it out.

    It will be forced through regardless. The Lords can only delay it.
  • tomterm8
    tomterm8 Posts: 5,892 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    marklv wrote: »
    It will be forced through regardless. The Lords can only delay it.

    Depends what the lawyers say; it seems to me that this is an act to extend the life of parliament, and can't be forced through using the Parliament Act.
    “The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
    ― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens
  • Sir_Humphrey
    Sir_Humphrey Posts: 1,978 Forumite
    And they said that Brown was a sinister Stalinist. We have MarkLV.
    Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    I think elections should be every three or four years. Five years is probably too long.
    I can't see why a parliament ought not to be able to vote itself out on a simple majority if a parliament is capable of passing legislation that spends our money on the same basis.

    Nonsense. Why not have an election every year then? Or every 6 months?

    This country stability and strong and resolute government. I would favour an election every 6-7 years.

    The problem with 4 yearly elections is that governments will always be looking over their backs instead of having the courage to pass necessary but unpopular laws. This is bad for Britain and bad for democracy.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.