Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Fixed Term Elections &
...... the televising of parliament. Two bad ideas?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
OG; After watching that circus last night, though I could only stomach a bit of it, I couldn't help thinking what the EU & the rest of the world thought about it.
UK parliament is on public display, - so is the EU parliament, but that's simply a benign talking shop (unless Nigel is present!) whereas the real decisions are made in the Commission which isn't available to public scrutiny, so they can watch every nuance of UK parliament while retaining the luxury of privacy themselves.
UK parliament is on public display, - so is the EU parliament, but that's simply a benign talking shop (unless Nigel is present!) whereas the real decisions are made in the Commission which isn't available to public scrutiny, so they can watch every nuance of UK parliament while retaining the luxury of privacy themselves.
It depends on what goes on in the rest of the world, doesn't it? On their worst days even the Canadian Parliament can get a little rowdy; in other elected chambers literal fights have broken out. And, besides, it's now more or less regarded as a fundamental right for citizens to see what goes on in their legislature. Just because Parliament may be embarrassed to show its face isn't an excuse to hide the proceedings from either the UK public or the rest of the world.
two sentences.
none with a main verb.
fixed term act probably has to go on the excellent grounds that it doesnt work
it was only for a coalition anyway to prevent the major party shafting the minor party
no one thought it would end up shafting the people/voters
telvising the commons is a good idea all in all
AB speak - commons television good.
it is obvious how the country gets into such difficulties -
this clutch of politicians arent very bright
none with a main verb.
fixed term act probably has to go on the excellent grounds that it doesnt work
it was only for a coalition anyway to prevent the major party shafting the minor party
no one thought it would end up shafting the people/voters
telvising the commons is a good idea all in all
AB speak - commons television good.
it is obvious how the country gets into such difficulties -
this clutch of politicians arent very bright
// no but they should be every 5 years or when the government calls one as before the FTPA.//
so lets be clear again - no fixed term parliament act but every five years, they should have a general election as a fixed term
TTT should be on some of the commons planning committees
he'd get things done!
so lets be clear again - no fixed term parliament act but every five years, they should have a general election as a fixed term
TTT should be on some of the commons planning committees
he'd get things done!
The fact that the government has lost its majority in the Commons means effectively they are now in opposition. Either the (official) opposition should call a vote of No Confidence or they should agree to a GE. The electorate should not have to tolerate a Parliament where the government is no longer able to govern and where the opposition can call the tune.
The folly of the FTPA is now laid bare. It was a ridiculous piece of legislation introduced simply so that Clegg could retain the spare keys to No 10 for a guaranteed period. No thought for unintended consequences was given. Well now those consequences have arisen - a government with no majority, an opposition who refuse to countenance a GE and a Prime Minister and Ministers unable to govern.
The folly of the FTPA is now laid bare. It was a ridiculous piece of legislation introduced simply so that Clegg could retain the spare keys to No 10 for a guaranteed period. No thought for unintended consequences was given. Well now those consequences have arisen - a government with no majority, an opposition who refuse to countenance a GE and a Prime Minister and Ministers unable to govern.
If we had an election next month, next November or next year, there isn’t really any evidence it would improve anything. Probability is, that it would be a hung Parliament.
Calling an election now is completely irresponsible. We are at a most crucial time in our history since the end of the second work war. Our Politicians should be working hard getting the best for our country. They should not be getting ripped off buying fish, and being photographed with a large bovine.
The act was a good idea but it hasn’t worked. May used it to lose her majority and Boris is still doing the election buffoonery even though there hadn’t been an election called.
Televising of Parliament has been a great success.
Calling an election now is completely irresponsible. We are at a most crucial time in our history since the end of the second work war. Our Politicians should be working hard getting the best for our country. They should not be getting ripped off buying fish, and being photographed with a large bovine.
The act was a good idea but it hasn’t worked. May used it to lose her majority and Boris is still doing the election buffoonery even though there hadn’t been an election called.
Televising of Parliament has been a great success.
//good bit in Hitch-hikers guide to the galsxy on this
re-invention of the wheel ctee - pt xxiv
rocket no 2 inadvertently lands on earth and contaminates the DNA pool.... //
yeh but - the occupants of ships 1 and 3, smug in the knowledge that they'd just rid themselves of a useless third of their population, subsequently perished from a disease caught from a dirty telephone...
re-invention of the wheel ctee - pt xxiv
rocket no 2 inadvertently lands on earth and contaminates the DNA pool.... //
yeh but - the occupants of ships 1 and 3, smug in the knowledge that they'd just rid themselves of a useless third of their population, subsequently perished from a disease caught from a dirty telephone...
The motivation behind the FTPA was, I think, not unreasonable: with the obvious exception of a Government that is no longer the majority in Parliament, why should it be within the PM's power to set the timing of an election? The present situation where it's become effectively the exact opposite is clearly worse -- it's a nonsense that a minority government serves as the Opposition's pleasure -- but still, I don't think it was an unreasonable problem that FTPA was attempting to address.
Presumably the answer is to beef up the powers of some independent figure whose sole role is to determine, according to some well-defined, objective tests, whether or not a government is functioning effectively; and, if not, to call an election. Historically, that was the role of the Monarch, although I don't think anyone would necessarily be clamouring to beef up their role.
Alternatively, defeats on key votes should be counted as confidence motions of the same status as an explicit confidence motion. Not just (as was the case before) politically equivalent -- a PM who lost a budget vote or a Queen's Speech vote would immediately go to the Queen and seek an election because they'd be seen to have lost a mandate -- but legally equivalent.
That way you could still preserve the idea of taking control over General Elections away from any specific politician, to call or permit on their whim, and give it to the whole House under obvious circumstances. In the present case, for example, it should be clear that Parliament taking control of its own time and out of the hands of government would be grounds for triggering a General Election. Perhaps you could also enforce the rule that a change of PM requires the new government to seek a fresh mandate.
Presumably the answer is to beef up the powers of some independent figure whose sole role is to determine, according to some well-defined, objective tests, whether or not a government is functioning effectively; and, if not, to call an election. Historically, that was the role of the Monarch, although I don't think anyone would necessarily be clamouring to beef up their role.
Alternatively, defeats on key votes should be counted as confidence motions of the same status as an explicit confidence motion. Not just (as was the case before) politically equivalent -- a PM who lost a budget vote or a Queen's Speech vote would immediately go to the Queen and seek an election because they'd be seen to have lost a mandate -- but legally equivalent.
That way you could still preserve the idea of taking control over General Elections away from any specific politician, to call or permit on their whim, and give it to the whole House under obvious circumstances. In the present case, for example, it should be clear that Parliament taking control of its own time and out of the hands of government would be grounds for triggering a General Election. Perhaps you could also enforce the rule that a change of PM requires the new government to seek a fresh mandate.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, NJ, but we've been discussing this for the last week or so, and the question came up as to what, if anything, AB members thought of it at the time that FTPA was introduced. I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear that you'd rubbished it back then, although mainly on the 2/3 majority (55% as it was proposed back then), rather than this sort of crap.
1 to 19 of 19
