Early elections?

[ewx]

[Poll #1042148]

For the avoidance of doubt by "always" I mean "always", i.e. no early elections as well as no late elections. So don't tick both that and any of the early-election options unless you really do think that fundamental constitutional laws should be self-contradictory!

Comments

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I think the people who ticked both "Parliament should always last five years" and one of the "...should be able to call an early general election" are somewhat confused?

[nunfetishist.livejournal.com]

The first option suggests that every parliament will have identical length? I certainly agree that there should be a maximum length of a parliament, but that they should also be able to be called early.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Yes, "always last five years" implies no early elections as well as no late ones. I was assuming that nobody supported indefinitely long parliaments (or that if they did they would say so separately).

[aardvark179.livejournal.com]

Well I haven't answered the poll, but they aren't necessarily confused. If a parliament lasts for five years and something very bad happens then you can either have a well defined chain of deputies who take over, or you can have an election. Although the former would work well for a president or similar I think the UK style government would be better served by a vote of no confidence followed by an election.

You'd probably want some sort of provision like that to handle bi-elections removing the ruling party's majority and such like. The thing you'd need to ensure is that whatever vote is needed cannot be initiated by the ruling party itself, otherwise it might simply be abused to hold elections when they wanted them.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Why do you need a general election after the government loses its majority? You could, for instance, have a new government, with the new majority [or majority coalition] in charge.

Emergencies of the form "half the MPs are dead" could be exceptions to a law against early elections without undermining the general idea.

[gerald_duck]

Why would half the MPs being dead be an emergency? I'm sure the civil servants could plan the celebrations without a government.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I was expecting a "both of the above" option to give those of us who like ticking incompatible poll options and then rationalising it later some extra grist :) I suppose "neither of the above" would be more contradictory :)

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

Early elections are pretty much an inherent feature of the Westminster system; certainly Canada and Australia allow the governing party to call an early election.

If early elections were constitutionally ruled out, how would we deal with an executive that had lost the confidence of Parliament? In the US, the executive has its own spheres of power and responsibility, so it can govern without the legislature. But in our system there's no such split, and if no party can gain the confidence of Parliament then new elections are surely the only way forward.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

If Parliament don't like the current government then presumably they form another one made up of a different set of people. As for "no one party", you could have a coalition, or even a minority government. It might not get much done, granted...

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

The state of not being able to get much done might be rather unsatisfactory. Are you sure that you would have preferred Harold Wilson struggling on with a minority administration (until 1979?!!!) to his calling a second election in 1974?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

A coalition of some sort would have been completely unthinkable at any point in that five years?

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

At any point... well, who can say? In 1974, yes, it apparently was unthinkable. (Northern Ireland was predominant among the reasons why.) In the circumstances I think it was quite right to go back to the electorate and try for a clearer result.

1910 is another example (with Ireland again a major stumbling block). And 1951 shows how risky it can be for the party calling the election.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

I voted that “The Commons should be able to vote for an early general election”, but I think it should require at least a 2:1 majority. An early election should not happen simply because the ruling party thinks it would win an election if held soon, but sometimes it is helpful to the country.