Fixed-term Parliaments to become law.. until 2020

[HeadingNorth]

Story here.

 

To summarize:

 

A government cannot call an election whenever it feels it has a chance of winning one - except, that is, if it commands fully two-thirds of the House, which would be a majority of well over 200. Not since the days of the National Government coalition has any such majority existed.

 

An opposition can still bring the Government down by winning a vote of no confidence, but - unlike at present - that will not automatically trigger an election. For instance, looking at the Parliament we currently have, the Lib-Dems could withdraw from the coalition and vote no confidence in the Tories, and could then attempt to form a government with Labour; only if that too failed, would a general election then take place.

[BritPat]

The Establishment parties are effectively one party it isn't even a case of overlap anymore but of political fusion. General elections merely determine the details of sectional management within the House.

 

Elections are little more than the ritual necessary to convince the Sheeple that they have the power of self determination.

[callippo]

except, that is, if it commands fully two-thirds of the House, which would be a majority of well over 200.

 

434 seats is the new magic number! That's 2/3rds of 650.

 

until they lower the number of MP's.

[I1L2T3]

Story here.

 

To summarize:

 

A government cannot call an election whenever it feels it has a chance of winning one - except, that is, if it commands fully two-thirds of the House, which would be a majority of well over 200. Not since the days of the National Government coalition has any such majority existed.

 

An opposition can still bring the Government down by winning a vote of no confidence, but - unlike at present - that will not automatically trigger an election. For instance, looking at the Parliament we currently have, the Lib-Dems could withdraw from the coalition and vote no confidence in the Tories, and could then attempt to form a government with Labour; only if that too failed, would a general election then take place.

 

To summarise, it looks a bit fascist.

[HeadingNorth]

except, that is, if it commands fully two-thirds of the House, which would be a majority of well over 200.

 

434 seats is the new magic number! That's 2/3rds of 650.

 

until they lower the number of MP's.

 

I've forgotten (or never did know) exactly how many MPs there will be after the reduction. If it's 600, then in order for a government to call its own election it would need a majority of 201. (The Speaker would not vote.)

[HeadingNorth]

To summarise, it looks a bit fascist.

 

Hardly; other parties will still be allowed to stand, and there are no proposals to beat people half to death for not voting for the right person.

[I1L2T3]

Hardly; other parties will still be allowed to stand, and there are no proposals to beat people half to death for not voting for the right person.

 

It can be a lot more subtle than that.

 

Ok, so fixed terms introduced alongisde redrawing of political boundaries in one parliament is good for democracy is it?

 

I don't think the Tories envisage ever being out of power again.

[HeadingNorth]

It can be a lot more subtle than that.

 

Ok, so fixed terms introduced alongisde redrawing of political boundaries in one parliament is good for democracy is it?

 

The redrawing of boundaries is merely equalising the constituency sizes; it is removing an inherent unfairness, not introducing one.

 

The removal of a government's power to choose the timing of its own elections makes it harder to remain in power indefinitely.

[callippo]

obviously the current boundaries favours Labour, massively. If they'd have got 36.2% of the vote, like the Tories did in 2010, they wouldn't have needed any coalition partner. They'd have had a majority of about 90 - almost as much as the Tories got in 1987, when the Tories got 42.2% of the vote.

 

it was the boundary review of the 90s, before the '97 election, that really skewed things in Labour's favour. The one in the 00s partially corrected that, but not much.

 

anybody that only gets only 35% of the vote in a UK general election, like Labour did in 2005, (same as they did in 1992, when they lost), just doesn't deserve to get a large majority of 68 like they did then.