SIGN UP

Answers

61 to 72 of 72rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by dannyk13. 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.
General elections are a maximum of 5 years and often earlier... but the integrity of it, is that we do honour them every time... before having another....
The difference is that the Fixed-Term Parliament Act was supposed to have ensured five-year terms. Whether or not it was good legislation it was supposed to set a new precedent for election cycles-- a precedent that has been roundly ignored, twice, by the Government. I think it's safe to say that Theresa May, at least, wasn't happy with the first one. Maybe there's been enough upheaval since 2017 to argue that the second early election was more or less forced.

But anyway. There's no comparison between the two positions. I respect the result and the legitimacy of the 2016 referendum but I don't regard it as irrevocably binding -- although I would prefer to see a further referendum rather than any unilateral action to reverse the result.
It wasn't binding... until they promised to honour it.. then it was. Would you also say that a further referendum should have "remain" as one option?
it was supposed to set a new precedent for election cycles-- a precedent that has been roundly ignored, twice, by the Government.
//We don't have the problems of newer democracies in, for example, voter intimidation, or deliberate bribery, or just stuffing the ballot box. //

Don't we? I think you need to read this, Jim:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/judgment.pdf

BTW, it wasn't just the government that defied the FTPA. Some 438 MPs voted in favour of an early election. The FTPA is a farce and should be repealed forthwith.
NJ, did Parliament not vote in favour of the last election (under the FTA) and the upcoming election?
NJ, since the FTPA allows for early elections under certain circumstances, if one of those circumstances is satisfied, how can you say the FTPA has been defied?
I think I was dimly aware of that case before, but I still stand by my point. That judgement ends up concluding that this was about one man's ambitions, and doesn't speak to a more widespread problem.

Presumably it's possible to accept that our system isn't flawless whilst also acknowledging that those flaws are on a relatively small scale.
The scale of the flaw is irrelevant. It’s something that simply shouldn’t be happening – and it’s a flaw in the system that can easily be resolved so there are no acceptable excuses.
I don't see how it can "easily" be resolved. Take proxy voting as an example -- a perfectly reasonable way to address the problem that some people are simply unable to attend the ballot box. Why should they be barred from exercising their democratic right if, for example, they are suddenly taken ill? And yet proxy voting is almost inevitably open to possible abuse. Presumably, the easy resolution is to ban such voting, but that would also cut off many people from being able to vote who would of course do so legitimately.

An easy solution is not always a correct one.
//I don't see how it can "easily" be resolved. //

I don't doubt it. However, it can easily be resolved. When people register to vote they are asked for their National Insurance number. Cross-checking numbers isn't beyond the realms of possibility. Computers are whizzes at things like that. A duplicate number - strike one off.
//NJ, did Parliament not vote in favour of the last election (under the FTA) and the upcoming election?//

//NJ, since the FTPA allows for early elections under certain circumstances, if one of those circumstances is satisfied, how can you say the FTPA has been defied?//

The 2017 election was agreed by a vote under the FTPA. This latest agreement to hold one was made possible by a simple bill that materially conflicted with - in fact defied - the FTPA and rested on a simple majority. The FTPA requires a two-thirds majority.

//Take proxy voting as an example...//

Proxy voting isn't the principle problem, Jim (at least it was not in Tower Hamlets and I doubt it is elsewhere). It is postal voting where the ballot papers are hoovered up by others.

61 to 72 of 72rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

Labour Set To Cheat

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.