Date of the next election

Can I be the first to thank AWEB for their coverage of this election!

I was going to say "the 2010 general election", but who knows whether we might have another general election before the year is out?

It occurs to me that - if we do have a hung parliament - the date of the next election will be in the gift of the opposition parties as much as that of the Prime Minister!

David

Comments
johnjenkins's picture

Prophecy

johnjenkins | | Permalink

Let me be bold and put my head on chopping block.

My predictions.

A hung parliament with DC and Cleggy forming a coalition.

GB resigning.

A general election either October 2012 or May 2013

By then Euroland will be either defunct, bankrupt, or re-designed.

cymraeg_draig's picture

Tomorrow would be good ....

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

Given the chaos and the disgraceful undemocratic attempts by Brown to cling onto power - the sooner the better.

The smart political move

Anonymous | | Permalink

The smart political move would be for Labour to vacate No 10 and let DC be PM leading a minority government for 12 months or so to make a total mess of the economy then pull the plug by a Lib-Lab vote of no confidence and force a fresh election in which the Tories would be annihilated.

But Labour / Lib-Dems must not be seen to be setting DC up to fail.

Syko

johnjenkins's picture

Smart????????????

johnjenkins | | Permalink

Have you not read into what the electorate want.

It has been painfully obvious  from the first debate and polls that the electorate want a coalition. They do not want all the policies from a particular party they want bits from each party.

If DC is smart then he will realise this and as Cleggy says Govern for the National Interest not the party.

media

Anonymous | | Permalink

This result just shows that the media is not as influential as they think they are.

The amount of anti-labour and anti-Brown coverage was massive, and yet the tories still can't win a majority and the Lib dems are nowhere again.

cymraeg_draig's picture

Anti Brown vote

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

The amount of anti-labour and anti-Brown coverage was massive, and yet the tories still can't win a majority and the Lib dems are nowhere again.

 

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/05/2010 - 12:19

 

It's a much clearer message that the Counry is sick of Brown & Hsarman & Co and wants this unelected PM out of Downing Street. 71% voted AGAINST Brown.

Blair formed a governments with 160 odd majority with just 35% of the vote, yet the Tories get 36% and cant get an overall majority.  Just proves how well the corrupt Labour party have fiddled the constituency boundares doesnt it.

johnjenkins's picture

Split

johnjenkins | | Permalink

This country has always been split between Labour and Conservatives. There is a hard core that no amount of media will influence either way. Then there are the "floaters". Those that have no particular persuation and are unpredictable.

What has happened in this election is that the debates have taken away any influence the newspapers might have had and the "floaters" have made their mind up accordingly. Hence the non paterned results.

Three things are very clear though.

The electorate do not want GB as PM.

They want DC to form a Government.

They want DC to take account of Labour and Lib/Dem policies.

 

Paul Scholes's picture

Voting fairness

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

I agree that there are some weird boundaries meaning one seat is represented by 60K people in one place & 100K people in another but to my simple mind even more unfair is a party like the LDs who get 23% of the vote but only end up with 50 rather than 150 seats with both the main parties getting far too many seats on the reverse of the coin.

Come to think of it, even though I'm over the moons (of Jupiter) that Caroline Lucas got our first foothold, even the Greens should have 6 MPs...scary eh?!

As I've said before "in another place" we now have a great great etc grandmother of parliaments who is in need of some reconstructive & cosmetic surgery to make her acceptable in the 21st century.

Oh yes CD, someone hit my parked car the other day and drove off, should I tell the police it was Gordon?

 

cymraeg_draig's picture

Look out for the Greens

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

Oh yes CD, someone hit my parked car the other day and drove off, should I tell the police it was Gordon?

 

Posted by Paul Scholes on Fri, 07/05/2010 - 14:44

 

It was most likely one of those "greens" - they don't value other people's cars and think you should be on horseback.

 

Electoral reform?

PR is, in my opinion, a disaster as it would result in perpetual hung parliaments. The current system is too open to corruption by fiddling constituency boundaries. Why don't we try something different - something that might just result in definite results, but, fair results?

I would like to see half the number of constituencies.  Each returning TWO MPs - so the same number of MPs.

The first MP elected to be elected by the current "first past the post system", and the second MP for each constituency elected by PR.  That, in my view, would be fair AND give workable results.

 

 

 

 

Paul Scholes's picture

CD

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Even us Greens have cars and being nearly vegan, I wouldn't own a horse.  I was just trying to establish what ills on this planet are not down to Gordon Brown.  Strange how the previous subject of grief was called Gordon Bennett.

I like your suggestion, whare's it come from?  Could you end up with the same person winning on both sides or would there have to be 2 teams?

 

cymraeg_draig's picture

PR

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

I like your suggestion, whare's it come from?  Could you end up with the same person winning on both sides or would there have to be 2 teams?

 

Posted by Paul Scholes on Fri, 07/05/2010 - 15:54

 

 

It comes out of what passes as my brain which despite rumours to the contrary does still function (sometimes).

No you couldn't end up with the same person elected twice (should that occur then the 2nd choice would go forward to win under PR) - I would envisage a 4 year fixed term for every government to stop people like Brown hiding away in the hope that things might be more favourable (for him) next year. 

 

 

 

davidwinch's picture

Fixed election dates

davidwinch | | Permalink

There does seem to be something illogical and unfair about the date of the next election depending upon the whim of the current PM and being able to be called at 4 weeks notice.

Would there be some sense in the election date being fixed every 4 years as, say, the first Thursday in May?

Would there need to be scope for additional general elections within the 4 year fixed term if, say, no party could continue in government?

Needs a bit of thinking about, but surely it is not beyond the wit of someone to come up with a sensible and fair scheme with predictable election dates?

David

P.S. It might be helpful next time if they had enough staff / polling booths / ballot papers so that everyone who wanted to vote was able do so.

cymraeg_draig's picture

Date

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

Would there be some sense in the election date being fixed every 4 years as, say, the first Thursday in May?

 Posted by davidwinch on Fri, 07/05/2010 - 16:44

 

Wouldn't April 1st be a more appropriate date ?

 

 

 

 

davidwinch's picture

Things have moved on!

davidwinch | | Permalink

Interesting to look back at this thread from an earlier age (last week!!) and see how things have moved on.

The intention is to have a fixed election date as the first Thursday in May every 5 years.

The effect of the coalition agreement and the nasty cuts that must come soon will be that virtually no-one in the 'Con-dem' party(ies) will want to face a general election within the next, say, three years.  So we may find no rebellions against the Con-dem leadership.

On the other hand the leaders may fall out in a bout of angry recrimination.  That would surely give Labour a strong chance to get back into power.

David

Shifting goalposts

WhichTyler | | Permalink

And requiring a 55% majority in a vote of confidence will help shore up a minority government if the coalition does fail (as the conservatives 306 seats is > the 293 required to block a confidence vote)

Leaving aside whether this is a good idea itself (I happen to think it's not), can you imagine the howls of outrage if a Labour administration  had attempted to introduce it?

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments