UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:50:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47
Author Topic: UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.  (Read 70337 times)
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,293
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1050 on: October 24, 2019, 02:33:20 PM »

Giving the executive control over the electoral calendar is actually an awful and blatantly undemocratic idea. It's in the same category of terrible ideas as letting incumbents draw their own district lines. The FTPA was obviously not perfect (5-year terms are unacceptably long), but my opinion of it has actually improved a lot with this current crisis. It's working exactly as it should, preventing a power-hungry PM from bullying Parliament into submission and opportunistically exploiting the tides of public opinion to his advantage.
It works just fine here in Denmark. The Prime Minister here can call for an election with 3 weeks notice at any time and for any reason. In certain periods of politicial instability, like the 70's, that meant an election pretty much every other year. In other more stable times, like the last two decades, we're usually fairly close to going the full 4 years. So the last elections have been in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019. Also the electoral advantage of picking the date hasn't really shown to matter very much in danish politics where support for the various parties is fairly stable, and rarely subject to massive swings within the space of a few months. Also, usually a party is in power for a couple of terms and then the opposition gains power. In my lifetime we've had the following prime ministers:

1975-1982: Anker Jørgensen (Social democrats)
1982-1993: Poul Schlüther (Conservatives)
1993-2001: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social democrats)
2001-2009: Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals)
2009-2011: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2011-2015: Helle Thorning Schmidt (Social democrats)
2015-2019: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2019-?: Mette Frederiksen (Social democrats)
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1051 on: October 24, 2019, 03:27:06 PM »

The govt have a majority for their domestic legislation & have passed non Brexit bills.


Only relatively uncontroversial ones.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1052 on: October 24, 2019, 04:05:48 PM »

Lets hope the Tories get a majority, then they can push through Brexit
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1053 on: October 24, 2019, 04:15:32 PM »

Lets hope the Tories get a majority, then they can push through Brexit

Johnson is arguably declining the opportunity to "push through Brexit" right now.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,893


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1054 on: October 24, 2019, 05:07:49 PM »

Lets hope the Tories get a majority, then they can push through Brexit

Johnson is arguably declining the opportunity to "push through Brexit" right now.

I doubt the SNP, Lib Dems, and Labour leadership would be pushing for a longer timetable if they didn't think it would guarantee that they could sink Johnson's deal.
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,564
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1055 on: October 24, 2019, 05:18:41 PM »

the issue is that you can't just 'repeal the fixed term parliament act' without passing a replacement.  Prior to 2011 the power to dissolve governments or call elections was entirely a prerogative power entirely in the hands of the Crown; and the government therefore handled it.  Once you take an area of law and pass legislation on it parliament is overriding that prerogative power and saying that area is now one that Parliament has interest in: and once you do that constitutionally you can't go back to what happened before since constitutionally its no longer a matter for the Monarch.  What a straight repeal would do is actually make it impossible FOR parliament to dissolve itself since no one would have any powers to do it.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1056 on: October 24, 2019, 06:18:35 PM »

the issue is that you can't just 'repeal the fixed term parliament act' without passing a replacement.  Prior to 2011 the power to dissolve governments or call elections was entirely a prerogative power entirely in the hands of the Crown; and the government therefore handled it.  Once you take an area of law and pass legislation on it parliament is overriding that prerogative power and saying that area is now one that Parliament has interest in: and once you do that constitutionally you can't go back to what happened before since constitutionally its no longer a matter for the Monarch.  What a straight repeal would do is actually make it impossible FOR parliament to dissolve itself since no one would have any powers to do it.

Well, regardless of whether or not a repeal would simply return it to its status as a power of the royal prerogative (evidently, it's murky), the one thing it wouldn't do is make it impossible for Parliament to dissolve itself. This is because parliamentary sovereignty means that nothing is impossible for Parliament to do, so long as it's legislated for by Parliament.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1057 on: October 24, 2019, 06:36:38 PM »

Lets hope the Tories get a majority, then they can push through Brexit

Johnson is arguably declining the opportunity to "push through Brexit" right now.

I doubt the SNP, Lib Dems, and Labour leadership would be pushing for a longer timetable if they didn't think it would guarantee that they could sink Johnson's deal.

Depends what you mean by "sink" - there *is* a good chance a Customs Union amendment may get through, but that is still Brexit and would nonetheless mean our PM could claim he had "got it done".
Logged
Helsinkian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,824
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1058 on: October 25, 2019, 01:35:12 AM »
« Edited: October 25, 2019, 01:55:40 AM by Helsinkian »

the issue is that you can't just 'repeal the fixed term parliament act' without passing a replacement.  Prior to 2011 the power to dissolve governments or call elections was entirely a prerogative power entirely in the hands of the Crown; and the government therefore handled it.  Once you take an area of law and pass legislation on it parliament is overriding that prerogative power and saying that area is now one that Parliament has interest in: and once you do that constitutionally you can't go back to what happened before since constitutionally its no longer a matter for the Monarch.  What a straight repeal would do is actually make it impossible FOR parliament to dissolve itself since no one would have any powers to do it.

Just give the power to dissolve parliament directly to the PM, and not the Crown, or reduce the majority required for dissolution to a simple majority.

I think it's becoming clear to people that Labour is making up excuses to deny an election because they're afraid they'll lose. Remember when Corbyn said that they would vote for an election once the Benn Act had passed parliament?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1059 on: October 25, 2019, 01:50:08 AM »

Giving the executive control over the electoral calendar is actually an awful and blatantly undemocratic idea. It's in the same category of terrible ideas as letting incumbents draw their own district lines. The FTPA was obviously not perfect (5-year terms are unacceptably long), but my opinion of it has actually improved a lot with this current crisis. It's working exactly as it should, preventing a power-hungry PM from bullying Parliament into submission and opportunistically exploiting the tides of public opinion to his advantage.
It works just fine here in Denmark. The Prime Minister here can call for an election with 3 weeks notice at any time and for any reason. In certain periods of politicial instability, like the 70's, that meant an election pretty much every other year. In other more stable times, like the last two decades, we're usually fairly close to going the full 4 years. So the last elections have been in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019. Also the electoral advantage of picking the date hasn't really shown to matter very much in danish politics where support for the various parties is fairly stable, and rarely subject to massive swings within the space of a few months. Also, usually a party is in power for a couple of terms and then the opposition gains power. In my lifetime we've had the following prime ministers:

1975-1982: Anker Jørgensen (Social democrats)
1982-1993: Poul Schlüther (Conservatives)
1993-2001: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social democrats)
2001-2009: Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals)
2009-2011: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2011-2015: Helle Thorning Schmidt (Social democrats)
2015-2019: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2019-?: Mette Frederiksen (Social democrats)

Just because it hasn't always worked doesn't mean it's not a bad principle to set.

When an election takes place is part of the "rules of the game" of politics. The players of the game should never be able to control the rules.
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,293
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1060 on: October 25, 2019, 04:17:15 AM »

Giving the executive control over the electoral calendar is actually an awful and blatantly undemocratic idea. It's in the same category of terrible ideas as letting incumbents draw their own district lines. The FTPA was obviously not perfect (5-year terms are unacceptably long), but my opinion of it has actually improved a lot with this current crisis. It's working exactly as it should, preventing a power-hungry PM from bullying Parliament into submission and opportunistically exploiting the tides of public opinion to his advantage.
It works just fine here in Denmark. The Prime Minister here can call for an election with 3 weeks notice at any time and for any reason. In certain periods of politicial instability, like the 70's, that meant an election pretty much every other year. In other more stable times, like the last two decades, we're usually fairly close to going the full 4 years. So the last elections have been in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019. Also the electoral advantage of picking the date hasn't really shown to matter very much in danish politics where support for the various parties is fairly stable, and rarely subject to massive swings within the space of a few months. Also, usually a party is in power for a couple of terms and then the opposition gains power. In my lifetime we've had the following prime ministers:

1975-1982: Anker Jørgensen (Social democrats)
1982-1993: Poul Schlüther (Conservatives)
1993-2001: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social democrats)
2001-2009: Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals)
2009-2011: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2011-2015: Helle Thorning Schmidt (Social democrats)
2015-2019: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2019-?: Mette Frederiksen (Social democrats)

Just because it hasn't always worked doesn't mean it's not a bad principle to set.

When an election takes place is part of the "rules of the game" of politics. The players of the game should never be able to control the rules.
I just think your basic reasoning is flawed. Asking the people is NOT the same as manipulating election maps at all. Why should you ever be afraid of the verdict of the people in a democracy?
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,067


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1061 on: October 25, 2019, 04:54:35 AM »

If Corbyn is preventing an election out of cowardice, why did he allow an election in 2017 when Labour was much further behind in the polls and the precedent of the 2017 campaign did not yet exist?
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1062 on: October 25, 2019, 05:06:33 AM »
« Edited: October 25, 2019, 05:10:42 AM by CumbrianLeftie »

the issue is that you can't just 'repeal the fixed term parliament act' without passing a replacement.  Prior to 2011 the power to dissolve governments or call elections was entirely a prerogative power entirely in the hands of the Crown; and the government therefore handled it.  Once you take an area of law and pass legislation on it parliament is overriding that prerogative power and saying that area is now one that Parliament has interest in: and once you do that constitutionally you can't go back to what happened before since constitutionally its no longer a matter for the Monarch.  What a straight repeal would do is actually make it impossible FOR parliament to dissolve itself since no one would have any powers to do it.

Just give the power to dissolve parliament directly to the PM, and not the Crown, or reduce the majority required for dissolution to a simple majority.

I think it's becoming clear to people that Labour is making up excuses to deny an election because they're afraid they'll lose. Remember when Corbyn said that they would vote for an election once the Benn Act had passed parliament?

He actually said "when the threat of no deal was totally off the table" - which it is almost, but not quite, at the time of writing. More to the point though is that it isn't just "Labour" - the entire opposition (*) is united in not wanting to give Johnson a 12th Dec election *on the terms he has set out*. Which is that parliament, as well as generously agreeing to that, will in return also generously agree to rush through his Brexit bill first.
 
They have told him, quite rightly, he can have a December GE or more time to pass his bill into law.

But not both.

And in response to this perfectly reasonable position, last night Cummings had another tantrum Smiley

(* this thus includes the SNP and LibDems, both of whom stand to gain from an election right now)
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1063 on: October 25, 2019, 12:46:18 PM »

Taking No Deal totally off the table i.e. eliminating it as the legal default, is a position that will of course never fly with the ERG...
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1064 on: October 25, 2019, 01:33:39 PM »

Giving the executive control over the electoral calendar is actually an awful and blatantly undemocratic idea. It's in the same category of terrible ideas as letting incumbents draw their own district lines. The FTPA was obviously not perfect (5-year terms are unacceptably long), but my opinion of it has actually improved a lot with this current crisis. It's working exactly as it should, preventing a power-hungry PM from bullying Parliament into submission and opportunistically exploiting the tides of public opinion to his advantage.
It works just fine here in Denmark. The Prime Minister here can call for an election with 3 weeks notice at any time and for any reason. In certain periods of politicial instability, like the 70's, that meant an election pretty much every other year. In other more stable times, like the last two decades, we're usually fairly close to going the full 4 years. So the last elections have been in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019. Also the electoral advantage of picking the date hasn't really shown to matter very much in danish politics where support for the various parties is fairly stable, and rarely subject to massive swings within the space of a few months. Also, usually a party is in power for a couple of terms and then the opposition gains power. In my lifetime we've had the following prime ministers:

1975-1982: Anker Jørgensen (Social democrats)
1982-1993: Poul Schlüther (Conservatives)
1993-2001: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social democrats)
2001-2009: Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals)
2009-2011: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2011-2015: Helle Thorning Schmidt (Social democrats)
2015-2019: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2019-?: Mette Frederiksen (Social democrats)

Just because it hasn't always worked doesn't mean it's not a bad principle to set.

When an election takes place is part of the "rules of the game" of politics. The players of the game should never be able to control the rules.
I just think your basic reasoning is flawed. Asking the people is NOT the same as manipulating election maps at all. Why should you ever be afraid of the verdict of the people in a democracy?

You really don't see how the timing of an election has a major influence on who wins it? Sure, "asking the people" is all well and good, but as this whole Brexit story shows, what exactly is being asked, when it is asked, and how it is asked has an enormous impact on the outcome. And of course, if a government knows it's going to lose elections, it's not going to call early elections. Meaning that an unpopular government could easily cling to power for 4-5 years, but a popular government will call new elections whenever needed to maximize support. I'm sorry but you won't convince me that this isn't problematic from a normative standpoint.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1065 on: October 25, 2019, 06:40:55 PM »

Well yes, of course the UK wasn't serious about leaving without a deal. The point is that no country in their right mind would be.

Regardless of the Brexit fiasco, it's been years, nay decades, since the UK was in its right mind.  Devil
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,293
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1066 on: October 26, 2019, 02:51:27 AM »
« Edited: October 26, 2019, 02:56:08 AM by BlueSwan »

Giving the executive control over the electoral calendar is actually an awful and blatantly undemocratic idea. It's in the same category of terrible ideas as letting incumbents draw their own district lines. The FTPA was obviously not perfect (5-year terms are unacceptably long), but my opinion of it has actually improved a lot with this current crisis. It's working exactly as it should, preventing a power-hungry PM from bullying Parliament into submission and opportunistically exploiting the tides of public opinion to his advantage.
It works just fine here in Denmark. The Prime Minister here can call for an election with 3 weeks notice at any time and for any reason. In certain periods of politicial instability, like the 70's, that meant an election pretty much every other year. In other more stable times, like the last two decades, we're usually fairly close to going the full 4 years. So the last elections have been in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019. Also the electoral advantage of picking the date hasn't really shown to matter very much in danish politics where support for the various parties is fairly stable, and rarely subject to massive swings within the space of a few months. Also, usually a party is in power for a couple of terms and then the opposition gains power. In my lifetime we've had the following prime ministers:

1975-1982: Anker Jørgensen (Social democrats)
1982-1993: Poul Schlüther (Conservatives)
1993-2001: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social democrats)
2001-2009: Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals)
2009-2011: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2011-2015: Helle Thorning Schmidt (Social democrats)
2015-2019: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2019-?: Mette Frederiksen (Social democrats)

Just because it hasn't always worked doesn't mean it's not a bad principle to set.

When an election takes place is part of the "rules of the game" of politics. The players of the game should never be able to control the rules.
I just think your basic reasoning is flawed. Asking the people is NOT the same as manipulating election maps at all. Why should you ever be afraid of the verdict of the people in a democracy?

You really don't see how the timing of an election has a major influence on who wins it? Sure, "asking the people" is all well and good, but as this whole Brexit story shows, what exactly is being asked, when it is asked, and how it is asked has an enormous impact on the outcome. And of course, if a government knows it's going to lose elections, it's not going to call early elections. Meaning that an unpopular government could easily cling to power for 4-5 years, but a popular government will call new elections whenever needed to maximize support. I'm sorry but you won't convince me that this isn't problematic from a normative standpoint.
A parliamentary election isn't comparable to a referendum. Everybody knows what they are voting on in a regular parliamentary election. In Denmark, basically every time we've had a way premature election, it has been because of some kind of parliamentary gridlock, in which case a new election is the natural cause of action. You think it would somehow be better to force that government to continue as a lame duck government for X more years until the period runs out?

Besides, it is not only the prime minister who can call for an election, any common majority in parliament can effectively call an election, by supporting a censure motion against the government.
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,370
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1067 on: October 27, 2019, 09:24:45 AM »

The current news appears to be that the Lib Dems and the SNP have told Boris that they will agree to his election - but they want it three days earlier so he can't rush through his deal and an extension will have to happen. And also because an election suits both parties very nicely.

The government's reaction to this has been unclear, but at the moment it seems that they're considering their options - Boris wants this election of course (given the state of Labour, who in his position wouldn't?) but a Brexit delay might give The Traitor's vehicle a boost that would complicate matters.

Of course, the FPTA means that Labour still hold the cards here - unless Boris uses his hypothetical 'for an election' majority to scrap the FPTA, which is a realistic option for calling an election while putting the metaphorical (or quite possibly literal) middle finger up at Corbyn, a desire for which is something that the Tories, the Lib Dems and SNP all have in common.

Corbyn's response to this is that he thinks its a stunt (possibly but I can't see any reason why either party wouldn't want an election) and that they should wait to take No Deal off the table (which is exactly what an election and a Brexit delay does). Mostly he's just sh!t scared of an election. Probably.

I suppose we'll find out tomorrow. Four days to go!
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1068 on: October 27, 2019, 10:01:41 AM »

No deal is not officially off the table until the UK formally extends A50. Which hasn't happened yet.

It is also generally accepted that Corbyn and his supporters do want an election soon.

Its largely his whiny brat critics in the PLP who don't.

(plus those who still delude themselves that *this* parliament will vote for a referendum, somehow)
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1069 on: October 27, 2019, 12:16:04 PM »

If the SNP and the LibDems go along with that, I hope they're ready to take the blame for BoJo's upcoming hard Brexit.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1070 on: October 27, 2019, 12:19:38 PM »

The depressing truth is that neither will care much if they win seats for themselves in the process Roll Eyes
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1071 on: October 28, 2019, 04:35:33 AM »

The EU has just agreed to an extension until January 31:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50205603
Logged
Helsinkian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,824
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1072 on: October 28, 2019, 05:16:30 AM »
« Edited: October 28, 2019, 05:21:50 AM by Helsinkian »


If there's not an election in December then the EU will be humiliated, since the EU leaders have so often said that an extension needs to serve a specific purpose and not just be an extension for the fun of it.

Corbyn already testing out new excuses:



If you wanted no-deal to be "completely removed" as an option then why did you vote to invoke article 50 which explicitly includes the possibility of no-deal?
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1073 on: October 28, 2019, 05:50:34 AM »

Because in early 2017 (when that happened) literally nobody saw no deal as a serious prospect?

This really isn't hard.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1074 on: October 28, 2019, 05:53:11 AM »
« Edited: October 28, 2019, 07:29:55 AM by Ye Olde Europe »


If there's not an election in December then the EU will be humiliated, since the EU leaders have so often said that an extension needs to serve a specific purpose and not just be an extension for the fun of it.

Well, every additional extension is easier to grant than the one before, because after a while it just becomes a generally accepted custom. Maybe the EU will at one point simply switch to auto-pilot and start to regularly wink new extensions through.


Or as the popular meme put it:

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 11 queries.