Should There Be A General Election?

[spathiphyllum]

Today Theresa May steps down as PM.

The next PM will be chosen by a handful of unrepresentative Tory party members.

After this, should the new PM call a general election?

[Old_Geezer]

Only when the fixed period expires. The last GE wasn't held to elect a PM but a parliament, so there's no justification for calling for another one if a different first of equals takes over.

[spathiphyllum]

"The thing is if you want the Tories out Spath you also have to remove Jeremy Corbyn because he's not electable and palatable to the undecideds who at this juncture are the ones who could swing a Labour GE win"

That's nonsense Calico. There are other parties out there. I assume the brexit party would win. I assume labour wouldn't even be top 4.

They would keep seats i'm sure but they would lose a lot also.

[ichkeria]

I don’t like Jeremy Corbyn either but he he’s definitely electable. By default if nothing else

[spathiphyllum]

That would not be democratic.

[mushroom25]

it's difficult to see how an election called before Brexit is finalised - in whatever way - could be decisive because it's so divisive. Brexit is not a party political divide issue (unless you're a lib-dem), and if either tory or labour decided to campaign on "the party of (insert Brexit stance here)", roundly half of their electorate would end up being alienated. we'd end up with a no overall control situation where parliament would probably be unable to take any decision. what then - another election? and another?

Brexit has to be sorted first. in whichever way our so called leaders can get any sort of agreement.

[spathiphyllum]

Does brexit have a plan? If so..

Party elected has to see it through
If brexit has no plan, then What The Funicular have we been doing?

Can't wait for no NHS and a load of chlorinated chickens from america

[spathiphyllum]

Feel cute might eat a bleached chicken later IDK.

[Old_Geezer]

The plan was always supposed to leave with the best possible deal by the agreed date. The date came and went due to obstructionist MPs, no-deal has been seen to be the best the EU will offer. We should have gone on the correct date but it seems parliament can not be trusted to do what their people tell them.

[spathiphyllum]

"The date came and went due to obstructionist MPs"


Why was that allowed? Why has there been no consequence for the failure to produce a democratically elected result?

How can we trust our politicians?

[Calicogirl]

Oh for God's sakes it wasn't a democratically elected decision (whatever that actually means?!?) it was an advisory referendum vote.

[spathiphyllum]

Yes, a democratically advised decision.

I agree with you, it was simply advisory..

However, they took the result and accepted it.

There was nothing undemocratic about the referendum. Even though people are facing consequences for how they campaigned.

[Old_Geezer]

Folk here getting it wrong again despite have it explained here many times. Legally it was advisory, but that was superseded by the House agreeing to implement the result. So the legal position ceased to be relevant. It was a referendum and parliament was duty bound to achieve what was promised. The vote *was* the decision. The MPs, as a group, have been trying to thwart it, apparently it seems their egos appear to be too large to accept that they are public servants not masters of the population, and they think they know better.

[New Judge]

//…it was an advisory referendum vote.//

Indeed it was. But…

- The government of the day said that it would implement the electorate’s decision.

- Parliament voted by five to one to invoke A50 (and if they had no intention of leaving why would they do that?)

- In a subsequent General election the two (then) main parties stood on manifestoes that pledged to take the UK out of the EU.

- Those two parties won 80% of the seats in that General election.

It’s long since progressed beyond being an “advisory referendum vote”. All that's happened in the meantime is the EU has - quite predictably - come up with a set of proposals which enable us to leave without them causing us too much bother (aka the "Withdrawal Agreement") which no Prime Minister or Parliament with any respect for the country they govern could possibly agree to.
So nothing unforseen has occurred and there is no reason why the referendum question needs to be revisited.

[jim360]

I mean, all of what NJ says is true. But even with that in mind, what the referendum is *not* is binding, nor immutable.

[dannyk13]

Jim, what was binding was Cameron saying that whatever the public voted for would be implemented.

[jim360]

// All parties except the Brexit party under-represent the UK as far as Brexit goes. //

So far, in their two electoral tests, the Brexit Party has picked up about 30% of the vote, both nationwide and in an individual constituency. If it is indeed the case that they're the only true representatives of Brexit, then it seems that the British public doesn't yet agree with that.

[jim360]

Even that wasn't binding. Never mind the fact that Cameron stepped down literally the day after the referendum, at which point it was no longer up to him.

[pixie374]

It was promised, Jim. Any politician wanting to go back on that now would be either suicidal or insane. No amount of pretending only the Brexit party represented leavers, makes a difference, and anyway, that one has been answered officially. It has had one confirmation that the public haven't changed their minds- and it didn't even need that.

[Old_Geezer]

An agreement by the House to deliver the result is an agreement by the House to deliver the result. Any individual, such as Cameron, resigning, has no effect on that. It was binding from then on. Which is why there is so much disgust and lack of trust with the present lot of MPs who try to renege on that, and the horrendous suspicion than all who put themselves up for election are the same.