I would say there wont be an election until after the negotiations now and itll be tight because people are polarised along labour/tory lines and brexit/single market lines so its a complex picture plus Corbyn leads a lot more middle England voters to swing certain ways!!

 

There won't be an election until June 2022, calling one requires a 2/3rds majority in the HoC of which no party/coalition anywhere near commands.

There won't be an election until June 2022, calling one requires a 2/3rds majority in the HoC of which no party/coalition anywhere near commands.

The next election is due in May 2022, not June. It could also happen if the government lose a vote of confidence (which only requires a majority of one, and no other leader can form a government.

Well, the Fixed-term parliament act remains one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation ever introduced.

 

My thanks to Nick Clegg for bringing that one in, and consigning the Liberal Democrats to permanent obscurity ever since.

It’s such a shit bit of legislation. Honestly I’d say it was like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic but that had more usefulness than the fixed parliament act

...and yet other systems seem to manage with fixed terms. and we had a general election when it wasn't supposed to happen. and it stops the party in power having the advantage of picking a date thats more favourable to them.

 

Yes, SO undemocratic, what a bast*rd that Clegg was eh, not like the principled politicians we have today....

...and yet other systems seem to manage with fixed terms. and we had a general election when it wasn't supposed to happen. and it stops the party in power having the advantage of picking a date thats more favourable to them.

 

You mean like when Theresa May picked the point when the Conservative party were '20 points ahead in the polls', and when the Labour party could hardly refuse to support the motion as it would have been electoral suicide? That really worked didn't it?

 

Sorry, but it is a useless act as was proven this year, there is literally no point to it whatsoever - the Liberal Democrats shouldn't have wasted their time whilst propping up the Tories and spent it more wisely, maybe they wouldn't be at 6% now if that had have been the case.

...and yet other systems seem to manage with fixed terms. and we had a general election when it wasn't supposed to happen. and it stops the party in power having the advantage of picking a date thats more favourable to them.

 

Yes, SO undemocratic, what a bast*rd that Clegg was eh, not like the principled politicians we have today....

It doesn't stop that at all! You make your own point there - we had an election that wasn't supposed to happen. May decided she wanted to increase her majority and no opposition is going to turn the opportunity for an election down because of how it would look.

 

I'll ignore the Clegg beatification as we've been over that enough times.

You mean like when Theresa May picked the point when the Conservative party were '20 points ahead in the polls', and when the Labour party could hardly refuse to support the motion as it would have been electoral suicide? That really worked didn't it?

 

I can't imagine any government who wouldn't go to the country if they thought they had a 20% lead!

 

You mean like when Theresa May picked the point when the Conservative party were '20 points ahead in the polls', and when the Labour party could hardly refuse to support the motion as it would have been electoral suicide? That really worked didn't it?

 

Sorry, but it is a useless act as was proven this year, there is literally no point to it whatsoever - the Liberal Democrats shouldn't have wasted their time whilst propping up the Tories and spent it more wisely, maybe they wouldn't be at 6% now if that had have been the case.

I think it's fair to assume that the number of votes the Lib Dems lost because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act is somewhere close to zero.

 

As John has already said, other countries mange perfectly well with equivalent legislation. Perhaps it would be better to look at ways of making it work more effectively.

I can't imagine any government who wouldn't go to the country if they thought they had a 20% lead!

You miss the point. The whole point is that it is ridiculous to give the sitting PM the power to call an election purely for party political advantage. The fact that it backfired this time doesn't invalidate the point.

I think it does invalidate the point beautifully personally. As evident from the change in the polls from calling the election to the election being held it demonstrates that in fact the sitting PM has no power to pick the perfect moment, so this legislation is not needed. Maybe it would have been better to instead of bargaining for this and the useless AV referendum, not triple tuition fees and allowing privatisation of the profitable part of the Royal Mail?

 

The Lib Dems lost MY vote, so it's at least 1. :P

Edited December 22, 20177 yr by Doctor Blind

I think it does invalidate the point beautifully personally. As evident from the change in the polls from calling the election to the election being held it demonstrates that in fact the sitting PM has no power to pick the perfect moment, so this legislation is not needed. Maybe it would have been better to instead of bargaining for this and the useless AV referendum, not triple tuition fees and allowing privatisation of the profitable part of the Royal Mail?

 

The Lib Dems lost MY vote, so it's at least 1. :P

But did they lose it because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

 

I didn't support privatisation of the Royal Mail, but it was in the Lib Dem manifesto.

But did they lose it because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

 

No.

 

I suppose it isn't quite as bad as George Osborne's 'must run a surplus by 2019/20' act which was broken within about 6 months of it being implemented. There's a special place in hell reserved for what I think of George Osborne though.

You miss the point. The whole point is that it is ridiculous to give the sitting PM the power to call an election purely for party political advantage.

 

That's what the Fixed Term Parliament Act was *meant* to stop, but it failed at the first hurdle of course.

 

The thing I don't understand, is - how did Corbyn *know* that the supposed 20% lead was false, in order to persuade his party to support the calling of an early election?

You mean like when Theresa May picked the point when the Conservative party were '20 points ahead in the polls', and when the Labour party could hardly refuse to support the motion as it would have been electoral suicide? That really worked didn't it?

 

Sorry, but it is a useless act as was proven this year, there is literally no point to it whatsoever - the Liberal Democrats shouldn't have wasted their time whilst propping up the Tories and spent it more wisely, maybe they wouldn't be at 6% now if that had have been the case.

 

so if it doesnt matter when an election date is then why put on massive stresses and costs having flexible ones at very short notice? Speaking as someone who works in local government, its vastly easier to plan for something when you know it's coming rather than drop everything for a pointless short notice election that a greedy party though they had in the bag. Whatever party that is.

That's what the Fixed Term Parliament Act was *meant* to stop, but it failed at the first hurdle of course.

 

The thing I don't understand, is - how did Corbyn *know* that the supposed 20% lead was false, in order to persuade his party to support the calling of an early election?

 

Westminster bubble. The Establishment looooves The Tories and will do ANYTHING to confirm their bias for them. They were basically patting themselves on the back in a neverending circle. They were utterly shocked that the North East hates the Tories, and sheepishly admitted it, 'We ddn't realise emnity for the Tories runs so deep in thr north that UKIPers went back to Labour', or something to that effect. Well... yeah? If they stepped outside the Westminster bubble and got an actual feel for things like Corbyn, then they would have seenm the fact that they thought the Tories had a chance in places like that just went to show that their lead was a false confirmation bias of smug political Elites.

It doesn't stop that at all! You make your own point there - we had an election that wasn't supposed to happen. May decided she wanted to increase her majority and no opposition is going to turn the opportunity for an election down because of how it would look.

 

I'll ignore the Clegg beatification as we've been over that enough times.

 

There is no beatification, Clegg is far more principled than flexi-Eu-hating Corbyn and his waste-money-on-trident-but-never-use-it-lets-not-have-any-discussion on- EU-shh-or-get-get-kicked-out-the-centre-hating-party or May-Brexit-means-brexit-chuck-foreigners-out-working-for-everyone lies. You just choose to hate him for one policy, and forgot who was really pushing the nasty policies which is why the country is in the mess it's in. Not Clegg, who was never running the country.

 

I said at the time that Labour supporters needed to look at the bigger issues and stop whingeing about one policy, and I was spot on dead cert right. Unless you think the current situation is marvellous, for Labour and for the country.

I think it does invalidate the point beautifully personally. As evident from the change in the polls from calling the election to the election being held it demonstrates that in fact the sitting PM has no power to pick the perfect moment, so this legislation is not needed. Maybe it would have been better to instead of bargaining for this and the useless AV referendum, not triple tuition fees and allowing privatisation of the profitable part of the Royal Mail?

 

The Lib Dems lost MY vote, so it's at least 1. :P

 

The AV referendum that Labour backed, then decided it didn't, in full strop mode. Worked out well for both them and the country, eh?

 

Tuition fees that labour introduced and have decided not to retrospectively end, which they can easily campaign for by ending Trident and using the money for something more important. I believe Corbyn feels that would be right? But doesnt want to lose votes.

stop whingeing about one policy

 

Bit like the Lib Dems and Brexit.

Westminster bubble. The Establishment looooves The Tories and will do ANYTHING to confirm their bias for them. They were basically patting themselves on the back in a neverending circle. They were utterly shocked that the North East hates the Tories, and sheepishly admitted it, 'We ddn't realise emnity for the Tories runs so deep in thr north that UKIPers went back to Labour', or something to that effect. Well... yeah? If they stepped outside the Westminster bubble and got an actual feel for things like Corbyn, then they would have seenm the fact that they thought the Tories had a chance in places like that just went to show that their lead was a false confirmation bias of smug political Elites.

 

Nice theory - just one problem : Polling organisations are not party political, so would have no reason to favour either party - and we've already discussed the fact that incorrect polls do *no-one* any good.