Will there be a General Election soon?

The Tories are likely to win a large majority even if the election is under the current boundaries.

And we shouldn't worry about the fix term Parliament act. Yes, it says it needs a super majority to vote for an election, but 1) Corbyn said a few weeks ago that May should call an election, so presumably enough Labour MPs would vote for it, but also 2) the act could be repealed by a simple majority and then May could call an election whenever she wants. It's weak and poor legislation that was all for effect and keeping Cameron in power for the full 5 years but in reality has no substance or importance.

Agreed, but the boundary review (which no-one can seriously object to since it should have happened in the last parliament let alone this) has two great effects.

1. It will increase the majority of itself since it favours the Tories. .

2. Corbyn has already stated that if he wins he will use it to deselect centrist and right wing Labour MP's. So (assuming he does win) it will have a crucial impact on Labour's civil war
and probably the size of the landslide in itself.

Agreed again.

The Fixed Term Act was always a nonsense, as this situation makes clear.

Also, as you say, how can Labour argue against a General Election?

I think that while you can't argue against the need for an boundary review is overdue, you can argue against the the specific legislation that forms the current plans due to the arbitrary and restrictive rules is places on those conducting the review. On the one hand, as we saw the draft boundaries a few years ago, it creates some absurd and disjointed constituencies and on the other hand, the rules are in effect gerrymandering by the Tories to make constituencies which favour them.

It would be hard for Labour to argue against a GE, but there is technically no need for one. May does not need her own mandate and convention is that she shouldn't need to, which has a lot of weight in the UK constitution, given it's not written.

To your first point, "what are the arbitrary and restrictive rules" you refer to?

If Labour isn't happy with the review procedures, wasn't it incumbent on them to win a general election (under the boundaries which favoured them!) so they could frame them to their preferred method?

To your second, if Theresa May decides to hold an election she is perfectly within her rights in constitutional terms. That is one of the beauties of an unwritten constitution. It is endlessly flexible!

Probably the ones that set out how the review is to be conducted. A truly independent review would simply set up a Royal Commission and direct it to "produce fair and democratically accountable constituiencies which provide for equal representation of the people".



Not really no. There are a number of reasons this is a nonsensical statement to make, but here are a few...

Boundaries don't feature in elections - the electorate don't really care.

It isn't incumbent on any political party to win anything - it is incumbent upon them to offer the people a choice and, in the constituencies in which they are returned, effectively represent all their constituents no matter what political persuasion.

You are misstating Parliamentary democracy and how it is supposed to function. For your statement to hold, there would be no official opposition - the answer everytime the opposition did their job would be "well, it was incumbent on you to win if you think that". Also, the Tory MPs are not the Government - the executive is the Government and the Tory MPs should be as equally as Labour holding them to account on behalf of their constituents. In reality they don't, but that is because our system of Parliamentary democracy is broken - which is a different point.

You seem to have missed my point, so I will restate it.

If a political party is unhappy with the terms by which a (supposedly independent) boundary review is to be conducted by the government of the day it really is a shame.

But if they had won the election THEY could have set the terms of that review.

It would certainly work in the Tory's favour.

It is actually a good thing to have an opposition though. It would be a shame to see it completely wiped out.

There is a bit of a buzz about this in the media, (especially about an amendment to the Fixed Parliament Act) which suggests that Theresa May is at least giving the matter some thought.

There are two aspects it seems to me which are connected but by no means the same, obviously. What is good for the country, and what is good for the Tories and May herself.

On the first point, post Brexit, we need stability, and an effective government to negotiate our withdrawal. And to manage the economy through difficult times, with a stubborn deficit, which would be exacerbated by any recession.

So do we need the instability of an election, (for which there is no constitutional or political imperative since the Tories have a working majority) at this difficult, dangerous and crucial time?

The flip side to that is that post Brexit this parliament seems discredited in democratic terms. The country on a more than 70% turnout voted by a majoirity against the electoral platform of Labour, the Lib Dems and the majority of Conservative MP's.

If we are to reflect that reality the Government (any Administration) needs a fresh mandate.

Turning to the person making the decision, it seems to be a no brainer. All the Tories need to do is to conduct the overdue boundary review and if they hold an election they will get a landslide with Labour in its current state.

If I were Prime Minister (sadly I am not) that is what I would do in a heart beat. It is just too tempting to smash Labour to smithereens and win yourself a stonking majority.

Thoughts?

If she does she is estimated to gain 40 seats and labour will loose nearly 80 so I say go on do it

Not when it is the Labour Party, the most evil party to have ever had political influence in the history of the UK.

Shame we can't have the lib dems as opposition. I still like Clegg.