Fixed Term Elections

marklv

tomterm8 wrote: »

It won't be. I suspect the agreement was hastily drawn up, and that what they are actually talking about is seperating votes of no confidence from votes of dissolution. And putting the power to disolve parliament into the hands of the commons... rather than the hand of the executive.

I am sure there will be a sunset clause, like in scotland, allowing parliament to be disolved if there is no replacement PM in a few days.

In which case, I personally, have little problem with it. But the coalition has already shown it can't explain policy well.

I would be really upset by a 55% vote of confidence, since that is highly undemocratic.

So what's all the fuss about? I'm astonished by the fuss some people are making about this very minor constitutional modification.

'Undemocratic' my fat a*se!

tomterm8

By definition, withdrawing the whip from enough people to block this measure would leave the ConDem government a minority government. Will they do it? It would be like Major under the 'bast**ds'... split the party, and maybe even lead to an early election that the Torys might not win.

tomterm8

marklv wrote: »

'Undemocratic' my fat a*se!

The fuss is that changing the majority necessary for a vote of confidence is a very major constitutional measure, which was not in any of the parties manifestos, and means the queen could appoint a prime minister who did not enjoy popular support.

It would enable Labour to form a government this parliament, even though it doesn't have a popular mandate.

The measure I've layed down is a reasonable measure that most people could agree to.

They are very different beasts.

StevieJ

marklv wrote: »

So what's all the fuss about? I'm astonished by the fuss some people are making about this very minor constitutional modification.

'Undemocratic' my fat a*se!

The way your replies are worded it is almost like you were the one that suggested this idea, defensive like Can't be, BTW you have not answered my point above.

markharding557

marklv wrote: »

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.

If we had elections evry year we would have chaos because no one would be able to do anything so every four years would be good for me

Radiantsoul

marklv wrote: »

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.

Every year would be fine with me.
I think strong and stable government is by definition unedemocratic. I would rather except some economic instability as a fair price for political freedom.
Governments already respond to opinion polls and use focus groups and there are local, majorial, by-elections, european elections, etc at slightly more often than yearly intervals. I am not sure I can think of any legislation that I feel governments ought to be able to pass without some accountability to the electorate.