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

[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.