ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Do The News Pundits Keep Talking About A Snap Election?
21 Answers
Thanks to the Limp dums we have fixed term parliaments so it's very difficult to have an election early even if the PM wanted it. So surely it's a waste of air time.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
yes, here you are: a two-thirds vote in the Commons or a no-confidence vote
http://
http://
Yes it’s very strange.
I watched a bit of “Question Time” last week (something I have largely stopped doing because of its clearly selected biased audiences and Dimblebore’s inability to keep panel members in order). There was a question “Should there be a snap election?” There followed fifteen minutes of the usual drivel with panellists interrupting and shouting at each other to no particular end. But none of them, or anybody from the audience said “It can’t be done”.
Three ways to do it:
1. 434 MPs must vote to dissolve Parliament. So, 216 or fewer must vote not to and with Labour holding 231 seats the chances of success down that route are limited (though some pundits have suggested that Labour may support the call for an election simply to see the Party annihilated and to be rid of Corbyn).
2. A vote of “No Confidence” in the current government must be secured (simple majority of 50% + 1 required). The opposition could call such a vote but it would require considerable support from the Tories to succeed. Of course the Tories could make the call instead and whip their MPs to support it. Somewhat bizarre, but it could be done.
3. Repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act. By far the most sensible option as the Act should never have been passed on to the Statute Books. However, in view of Their Lordships apparent reticence to pass even the simplest of motions uncontested, this seems highly unlikely to succeed in the short term.
So, a pig’s breakfast which could in theory condemn the country to a lame duck government for a prolonged period, and all to give Nick Clegg the spare keys to No 10 for a guaranteed period. It all looked such a wonderful idea in 2010. Now it looks exactly as it should have then – just stupid.
I watched a bit of “Question Time” last week (something I have largely stopped doing because of its clearly selected biased audiences and Dimblebore’s inability to keep panel members in order). There was a question “Should there be a snap election?” There followed fifteen minutes of the usual drivel with panellists interrupting and shouting at each other to no particular end. But none of them, or anybody from the audience said “It can’t be done”.
Three ways to do it:
1. 434 MPs must vote to dissolve Parliament. So, 216 or fewer must vote not to and with Labour holding 231 seats the chances of success down that route are limited (though some pundits have suggested that Labour may support the call for an election simply to see the Party annihilated and to be rid of Corbyn).
2. A vote of “No Confidence” in the current government must be secured (simple majority of 50% + 1 required). The opposition could call such a vote but it would require considerable support from the Tories to succeed. Of course the Tories could make the call instead and whip their MPs to support it. Somewhat bizarre, but it could be done.
3. Repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act. By far the most sensible option as the Act should never have been passed on to the Statute Books. However, in view of Their Lordships apparent reticence to pass even the simplest of motions uncontested, this seems highly unlikely to succeed in the short term.
So, a pig’s breakfast which could in theory condemn the country to a lame duck government for a prolonged period, and all to give Nick Clegg the spare keys to No 10 for a guaranteed period. It all looked such a wonderful idea in 2010. Now it looks exactly as it should have then – just stupid.
TTT...why do you persist with blaming everything you don't like about the 2010-2015 Government on the LibDems ?
In that Government, the Tories held 306 seats, and the LibDems held just 57....clearly a Tory majority "coalition"
The Fixed Term Parliament was clearly passed by the House of Commons, so get used to it.
In that Government, the Tories held 306 seats, and the LibDems held just 57....clearly a Tory majority "coalition"
The Fixed Term Parliament was clearly passed by the House of Commons, so get used to it.
As I’ve said before, Mikey, it was put to the Commons as part of the “Coalition Agreement”. This agreement was drawn up to enable Mr Cameron to form a government with the LibDems. He did the country no favours. What he should have done was formed a minority government, got defeated a couple of times on key issues in the Commons and called a fresh General Election after six months or so. This would have had the added advantage of demonstrating to the country what it would be permanently like if they agreed to some sort of proportional representation (another LibDem craving which the country thankfully kicked into touch by rejection the AV system, the referendum on which was another requirement to keep the LibDems onside). Instead he allowed 57 MPs to call the tune and the results of “Bottler” Cameron’s follies resound today.
Because something was passed in an era of stupidity some years ago does not mean we should necessarily “get used to it”. The situation now is the first manifestation of that stupidity but there will be more before common sense prevails and the Act is consigned to the dustbin where it belongs.
Because something was passed in an era of stupidity some years ago does not mean we should necessarily “get used to it”. The situation now is the first manifestation of that stupidity but there will be more before common sense prevails and the Act is consigned to the dustbin where it belongs.
NJ...Cameon took the right decision to go after a coalition...whether the LibDems were right to accept is debatable.
They learned, the hard way, that one should use a very long spoon, if they were to consider supping with the devil.
But if the Tories were to have gone it alone, the Government would have fallen very quickly, forcing, as you correctly point out, another Election. But there was no guarantee that they would have won Election Number two. The stalemate could have gone much as before.
If you study the voting figures for 2010, you will see that Labour was not that far behind the Tories, just 48 votes.
But....whatever....it was the Tories that brought in the FTPA and they are stuck with it, at least for the time being. The maths involved in repealing the Act means that we may have it for a long time yet.
They learned, the hard way, that one should use a very long spoon, if they were to consider supping with the devil.
But if the Tories were to have gone it alone, the Government would have fallen very quickly, forcing, as you correctly point out, another Election. But there was no guarantee that they would have won Election Number two. The stalemate could have gone much as before.
If you study the voting figures for 2010, you will see that Labour was not that far behind the Tories, just 48 votes.
But....whatever....it was the Tories that brought in the FTPA and they are stuck with it, at least for the time being. The maths involved in repealing the Act means that we may have it for a long time yet.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
News21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.