ewx: (poll)
Richard Kettlewell ([personal profile] ewx) wrote2007-08-20 01:56 pm
Entry tags:

Early elections?

[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!

ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2007-08-20 04:13 pm (UTC)(link)
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...

[identity profile] gareth-rees.livejournal.com 2007-08-20 05:01 pm (UTC)(link)
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?
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2007-08-20 05:33 pm (UTC)(link)
A coalition of some sort would have been completely unthinkable at any point in that five years?

[identity profile] gareth-rees.livejournal.com 2007-08-20 08:22 pm (UTC)(link)
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.