Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should we hold an early general election? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Theresa May call a snap general election?
    Yes
    35.90%
    No
    51.28%
    Yes- After we've left the EU
    12.82%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Should there be an early general election before article 50 is triggered this year



    (Whilst I voted remain this isn't about whether we leave the EU and the single market or not- (unless the lib dems get a majority) but would massively strengthen the mandate and power of parliament and Theresa May and unite the country as a whole.

    (Given a choice between Farron, Corbyn and May I'd personally vote for Theresa- before anyone calls me a remoaner)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I personally see no need for one, but it would be fantastic to be rid of Labour three years earlier than expected.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    what would be the practical point? the conservatives would obviously kick the **** out of labour, and the lib dems clearly haven't gained back their credibility if they only ask for referenda when they have something to gain from it.
    also, don't we now have a fixed term parliament act 2011? I personally don't mind whether we have another general election so long as we're somewhat consistent about the time gaps between each one. we shouldn't have a government that only triggers general elections when they think they'll be making use of a temporary gain in support for more years in power. I think that was the whole point of the act itself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what would be the practical point? the conservatives would obviously kick the **** out of labour, and the lib dems clearly haven't gained back their credibility if they only ask for referenda when they have something to gain from it.
    also, don't we now have a fixed term parliament act 2011?
    The FTPA notes that an election may be held early under exceptional circumstances. If these aren't exceptional circumstances I don't know what are.

    The point is The conservatives are moving in a new and different direction and thee Labour Party are rudderless and providing no opposition. Both of these can be addressed by a GE.

    Like them or loathe them the Lib Dems are being entirely consistent- they voted against a referendum and have always been a pro EU party and they have a right to exist and represent the views of a significant chunk of the population. Whilst they are not going to win I would be surprised if they did not at least double their seats.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It will be either UKIP or CONSERVATIVE considering 2016's success

    That being said; the UK will leave the EU. America will have Trump as their president, France and my country Italy will leave the EU and there is nothing the progressive left can do about it xo
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The FTPA notes that an election may be held early under exceptional circumstances. If these aren't exceptional circumstances I don't know what are.
    how do we get an accurate understanding of "exceptional circumstances" which can be understood in a non-opportunistic way? because I really don't understand how this circumstance is "exceptional" in the way you're implying - nothing will happen if we don't have another one, for instance. there's a stable, "majority" government in place at the moment. does "exceptional" in the sense you mean it simply mean "we just really really want one!"? well, it's not like any promises were broken, so even if that was the case, it wouldn't be due to any clear reason

    The point is The conservatives are moving in a new and different direction and thee Labour Party are rudderless and providing no opposition. Both of these can be addressed by a GE.
    so...what would be the point in an election if it will only weaken that opposition? it's not like the lib dems would make a valiant return

    against a referendum and have always been a pro EU party and they have a right to exist and represent the views of a significant chunk of the population. Whilst they are not going to win I would be surprised if they did not at least double their seats.
    you can't really mean that
    before 2010 they wanted an in-out referendum
    then in 2010 they didn't
    then in 2016 after they lost that in-out referedum they suddenly want a second one because it will benefit them...
    the lib dems on the EU have been about as consistent as a wind dial
    remember when ed davey (lib dem) was *kicked out of the commons* over his passion over the will for a referendum? it used to be on youtube but it's suddenly disappeared so here's an article concerning it: https://www.channel4.com/news/by/mic...-eu-referendum
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LisaNikita)
    It will be either UKIP or CONSERVATIVE considering 2016's success

    That being said; the UK will leave the EU. America will have Trump as their president, France and my country Italy will leave the EU and there is nothing the progressive left can do about it xo
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    how do we get an accurate understanding of "exceptional circumstances" which can be understood in a non-opportunistic way? because I really don't understand how this circumstance is "exceptional" in the way you're implying - nothing will happen if we don't have another one, for instance. there's a stable, "majority" government in place at the moment. does "exceptional" in the sense you mean it simply mean "we just really really want one!"? well, it's not like any promises were broken, so even if that was the case, it wouldn't be due to any clear reason



    so...what would be the point in an election if it will only weaken that opposition? it's not like the lib dems would make a valiant return



    you can't really mean that
    before 2010 they wanted an in-out referendum
    then in 2010 they didn't
    then in 2016 after they lost that in-out referedum they suddenly want a second one because it will benefit them...
    the lib dems on the EU have been about as consistent as a wind dial
    remember when ed davey (lib dem) was *kicked out of the commons* over his passion over the will for a referendum? it used to be on youtube but it's suddenly disappeared so here's an article concerning it: https://www.channel4.com/news/by/mic...-eu-referendum
    Are you really saying that Brexit was unexceptional? This is the most important political decision in decades.

    The Tories do not have a massive majority. Additionally Labour is too comfortable, losing seats under Corbyn would allow it to ditch Corbynism and thus make it competitive again i.e. Under Dan Jarvis.

    You could say the same thing about the other parties- it used to be ukip policy to stay in the single market not long ago! The lib Dems referendum or other wise have always wanted to stay in the EU as it currently stands.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LisaNikita)
    It will be CONSERVATIVE considering 2016

    That being said; the UK will leave the EU. America will have Trump as their president and there is nothing the progressive left can do about it xo
    Fixed that for you
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Are you really saying that Brexit was unexceptional? This is the most important political decision in decades.
    why was it exceptional in a sense that the first EU/EEC referendum, AV referendum or scottish independence referendum wasn't exceptional? of course the opposers of brexit would want a second referendum for the hell of it just like the scottish nationalists would want a second indie referendum for the hell of it - nothing's changed yet, but they are both seeming to be arguing for pure egotism
    also, what would change having another general election? is there uncertainty that needs to be fixed? I thought the referendum dealt with that quite well?

    The Tories do not have a massive majority. Additionally Labour is too comfortable, losing seats under Corbyn would allow it to ditch Corbynism and thus make it competitive again i.e. Under Dan Jarvis.
    the political constitution of the UK doesn't mandate that an opposition must be powerful...if that were the case there would have been a huge deficiency of general elections in the 80s. you can't just argue that the result of an election MUST be a roughly equal balance between the government benches and the opposition benches - what if one year the people voted for one party by a ratio of 4:1, for instance? would that mean the state would tell them to "try again"?

    You could say the same thing about the other parties- it used to be ukip policy to stay in the single market not long ago! The lib Dems referendum or other wise have always wanted to stay in the EU as it currently stands.
    but does that mean the level of inconsistency is anything remotely like the level from the lib dems? it's not like UKIP have chyanged their mind about an EU referendum or EU membership like the lib dems have. I don't think you can argue that it is anything like the lib dems' level of political confusion. and it doesn't matter what they happened to want, they have flipped and flopped regarding the EU *referendum* question
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why was it exceptional in a sense that the first EU/EEC referendum, AV referendum or scottish independence referendum wasn't exceptional?
    also, what would change having another general election? is there uncertainty that needs to be fixed? I thought the referendum dealt with that quite well?



    the political constitution of the UK doesn't mandate that an opposition must be powerful...if that were the case there would have been a huge deficiency of general elections in the 80s. you can't just argue that the result of an election MUST be a roughly equal balance between the government benches and the opposition benches - what if one year the people voted for one party by a ratio of 4:1, for instance? would that mean the state would tell them to "try again"?



    but does that mean the level of inconsistency is anything remotely like the level from the lib dems? it's not like UKIP have chyanged their mind about an EU referendum or EU membership like the lib dems have. I don't think you can argue that it is anything like the lib dems' level of political confusion. and it doesn't matter what they happened to want, they have flipped and flopped regarding the EU *referendum* question
    I agree with Peter Hitchens in that referendums are awful clumsy mechanisms especially for this country. A general election would be able to resolve many if the underlying problems caused by referenda.

    The difference between this referendum and the 1975 one is that from then we have grown together as one in many extents for the last four decades. AV was obviously insignificant. Scotland was significant but as above has lead to the absurd situation of SNP dominance in a generally pro U.K. Scotland. A GE now might also resolve that slightly.

    The uncertainty is that we have a massive change if direction from the Conservative party and an unelected leader making very far reaching decisions as well as many Constituencies who as per Richmond are essentially unrepresented. There is a mandate to leave the EU but little else. And that is the difference between now and the 1980s- Thatcher was elected under a clear mandate.

    There is no inconsistency. Like all political parties the lib Dems are opportunists. Presumably they thought (and they'd probably be right) that they'd win such a referendum at that time not in the midst if a global recession and refugee crisis.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I agree with Peter Hitchens in that referendums are awful clumsy mechanisms especially for this country. A general election would be able to resolve many if the underlying problems caused by referenda.
    The difference between this referendum and the 1975 one is that from then we have grown together as one in many extents for the last four decades. AV was obviously insignificant. Scotland was significant but as above has lead to the absurd situation of SNP dominance in a generally pro U.K. Scotland. A GE now might also resolve that slightly.
    yes but that's not what I was driving at - I meant that those referenda seemed pretty conclusive. how is the EU referendum of 2016 not conclusive? we voted to leave the EU, and by definition, that means having to leave things like the single market if we want to be able to control immigration like so many voters obviously wanted to do. whether or not we stay in the single market *while* controlling our borders isn't up to us seeing as the single market is a creature of the EU, not the UK

    The uncertainty is that we have a massive change if direction from the Conservative party and an unelected leader making very far reaching decisions as well as many Constituencies who as per Richmond are essentially unrepresented. There is a mandate to leave the EU but little else. And that is the difference between now and the 1980s- Thatcher was elected under a clear mandate.
    but our constitution, again, has no understanding of "unelected leader"; we elect "parties", and the party itself chooses their leader. if you're not a member of that party, why would you be able to choose? gordon brown was an "unelected leader" but where was our general election then? again: it's not about leaders, it's about parties and confidence in the house of commons being vested in a person who happens to be in a prominent (not not absolute) position

    There is no inconsistency. Like all political parties the lib Dems are opportunists. Presumably they thought (and they'd probably be right) that they'd win such a referendum at that time not in the midst if a global recession and refugee crisis.
    so they lack credibility then - why would they do well in a general election?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yes but that's not what I was driving at - I meant that those referenda seemed pretty conclusive. how is the EU referendum of 2016 not conclusive? we voted to leave the EU, and by definition, that means having to leave things like the single market if we want to be able to control immigration like so many voters obviously wanted to do. whether or not we stay in the single market *while* controlling our borders isn't up to us seeing as the single market is a creature of the EU, not the UK



    but our constitution, again, has no understanding of "unelected leader"; we elect "parties", and the party itself chooses their leader. if you're not a member of that party, why would you be able to choose? gordon brown was an "unelected leader" but where was our general election then? again: it's not about leaders, it's about parties and confidence in the house of commons being vested in a person who happens to be in a prominent (not not absolute) position

    so they lack credibility then - why would they do well in a general election?
    The governments position prior to brexit was to remain. Whilst they voted for a referendum brexit necessitates a clear change of direction which was not accounted for. There is a mandate for brexit but not on who should be negotiating it and what should be then done.

    Gordon Brown although undemocratic has two main differences- first there was no major change in terms of mandate as per above and secondly there was a national emergency in the global recession happening. Additionally May is attempting to use her executive power to override parliament on Brexit.

    By those standards all parties have no credibility. Lib Dems unlike labour have a United and common policy and will do well in pro Remain areas as we have seen.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The governments position prior to brexit was to remain. Whilst they voted for a referendum brexit necessitates a clear change of direction which was not accounted for. There is a mandate for brexit but not on who should be negotiating it and what should be then done.
    surely "who is negotiating it" is a matter of the civil service? and surely to negotiate what is to be done is giving away our hand? if we're wanting to leave the EU with at least control over our borders, any access to the single market, for instance, will be an advantage, so how is that uncertain regarding our obvious terms? what isn't clear? whether or notwe'll get it? it's not up to us - it's up to the EU

    Gordon Brown although undemocratic has two main differences- first there was no major change in terms of mandate as per above and secondly there was a national emergency in the global recession happening. Additionally May is attempting to use her executive power to override parliament on Brexit.
    what mandate? there was a referendum to leave the EU - surely *that* was the mandate? what would may do that cameron wouldn't?
    and no she isn't - her brexit actions are not only being put to the commons but also to the lords - the supreme court already said the government has to put it to parliament and now they are


    By those standards all parties have no credibility. Lib Dems unlike labour have a United and common policy and will do well in pro Remain areas as we have seen.
    okay, but I don't remember the last time the tories or labour took such a drastic U turn against such abundantly clear promises
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes , lets secure a 400+ majority for the conservatives !
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I see little advantage to May calling an election before the negotiations because right now she can dictate events. I think its much more likely that if negotiations complete inside 18 months then an election in early 2019 will be called in which May goes to the country and says 'accept the deal or put Corbyn in power'.

    If May waits for the boundary change in 2018 then the last Youguv poll (17% incumbent lead) would give her a majority of 124.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Waiting until 2020 will give Corbyn more time, and more rope, to hang himself, making the inevitable Conservative majority that much bigger.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Should there be an early general election before article 50 is triggered this year



    (Whilst I voted remain this isn't about whether we leave the EU and the single market or not- (unless the lib dems get a majority) but would massively strengthen the mandate and power of parliament and Theresa May and unite the country as a whole.

    (Given a choice between Farron, Corbyn and May I'd personally vote for Theresa- before anyone calls me a remoaner)
    I just don't see the point.

    If your labour you're going to lose seats.

    If your ukip you might gain one or two.

    If your snp the only way is down even though they would probably win nearly all the seats they have.

    If you are lib dem you will gain seats easily

    If your conservative your going to have a bigger majority.

    So basically everything is the same except corbyn would have to go.

    And the conservatives would be able to afford dissenters in the ranks thanks to a larger majority.

    So basically a load of hassle and money spent for sod all reason


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Yes , lets secure a 400+ majority for the conservatives !
    That's probably what would happen given that Labour is collapsing under the weight of an ironically very skinny Santa Claus.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    That's probably what would happen given that Labour is collapsing under the weight of an ironically very skinny Santa Claus.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't know about 400 as the lib dems will win a lot more seats but definitely they will get over 350


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.