Could we see another General Election this year?

[Derek Smith]

skwdenyer said:

An enlightened Government could do exactly that, i.e. operate without a majority, and promulgate legislation through consensus. There is no requirement for Parliament to continually legislate; in fact, it would arguably be better if they stopped for a few years and allowed the dust to settle. So much of the meaningful stuff involves powers already delegated to Ministers, or the passage of secondary legislation, that a lot could continue without a 'working majority'.

Although the systems are different, if we look back upon Clinton's presidency, it was arguably most successful precisely because, for much of the time, he was a Democratic President facing a Republican Congress, so that only those issues upon which there was broad-based agreement actually got through. In consequence, there was surprisingly little change and, as a result, the country got on amidst an outbreak of stability and the economy thrived because of it.

I would prefer "my" Government to govern, not to treat being 'in power' as a continual process of social and economic experimentation. There is a difference, and it would be nice to see it understood from time-to-time!

Excellent post.

Might I suggest one slight modification? Instead of just sitting around perhaps the MPs could look at old legislation and cancel that which is useless and doesn't isn't needed any more.

I had an idea that all legislation should have a limited life span, say 50 years for ex common law down to 5 years for that stuff that is brought in a whim. I remember having to learn the Vagrancy Act, brought in once we didn't need so many soldiers to fight Napoleon.

[Johnnytheboy]

skwdenyer said:

An enlightened Government could do exactly that, i.e. operate without a majority, and promulgate legislation through consensus. There is no requirement for Parliament to continually legislate; in fact, it would arguably be better if they stopped for a few years and allowed the dust to settle. So much of the meaningful stuff involves powers already delegated to Ministers, or the passage of secondary legislation, that a lot could continue without a 'working majority'.

That relies:

1. on the opposition not opposing for the sake of it/calling no confidence votes at every opportunity

2. the media not making the story at every vaguely important parliamentary vote about the minority rather than the issue they're voting on.

[skwdenyer]

Johnnytheboy said:

skwdenyer said:

An enlightened Government could do exactly that, i.e. operate without a majority, and promulgate legislation through consensus. There is no requirement for Parliament to continually legislate; in fact, it would arguably be better if they stopped for a few years and allowed the dust to settle. So much of the meaningful stuff involves powers already delegated to Ministers, or the passage of secondary legislation, that a lot could continue without a 'working majority'.

That relies:

1. on the opposition not opposing for the sake of it/calling no confidence votes at every opportunity

2. the media not making the story at every vaguely important parliamentary vote about the minority rather than the issue they're voting on.

That is ll true; too true, perhaps. However, I believe that (a) this is the point at which the Monarch would try to instill some common sense into the heads of the relevant politicians, even to the extent of speaking publicly on the issue, and (b) the politicians - and the public - would quickly get sick of a series of elections if the political will of the country were genuinely so finely balanced.

I will admit that I'm not up-to-speed on the constitutional niceties but, if there were no votes to be taken, what would the procedure be? For instance, it is only convention that a confidence vote lost begets a general election, I believe, and not statute whilst there is, of course, no constitution to fall back on in such circumstances!

I agree that the PR issues would be complicated; could a PM adequately explain to the public that s/he was attempting to govern in the national interest rather than simply clinging-on to power at all costs? That would depend upon the politician, I am sure; but then I would hope that the politician who attempted to do such a wonderful - if courageous - thing would be one of sufficient calibre to make the point stick.

[dcb]

skwdenyer said:

Although the systems are different, if we look back upon Clinton's presidency, it was arguably most successful precisely because, for much of the time, he was a Democratic President facing a Republican Congress, so that only those issues upon which there was broad-based agreement actually got through. In consequence, there was surprisingly little change and, as a result, the country got on amidst an outbreak of stability and the economy thrived because of it.

Nail, meet head.

This is precisely why I am so keen on AV - to get
the politicos out of the way of the economic development of the UK.