That's it

[Suff]

Exactly WM, the fixed term parliament act is to stop governments just calling an election when they feel like it. Witness the Labour government of 1974, where Wilson led a minority government and shortly after, having had a budget beneficial to voters, went to the polls again in October with the aim of winning a majority. Contrast the SNP government of Salmond in Scotland where they governed for the full term as a minority government and were rewarded in the polls with a strong majority.

Personally I believe that were it not for certain die hard EUphiles, in all 3 main parties, who are willing to sink the EU negotiations in order to derail Brexit; May would not have had an election. The fact that she has called an election speaks of her strength. Not of her avarice or her willingness to play the system. This election is, first and foremost, to stop those who want to play the system from getting the UK a bad deal when we exit the EU.

For me there is nothing wrong in that. If she has had to reassess, after the calling of Brexit and the setting up of the parameters to negotiate Brexit and if calling the election is the right thing; based on that reassessment, then it speaks much of her character that she is doing what is right. Not the easy thing of leading the country into a mess because she honestly didn't believe, when she took over, that the country needed an election and it was just easier to go with what she said at the outset and not make the case for a different path.

It would be worthwhile to reflect on those who are trying to make much of this decision and what their motives are and were. Because almost every single person who has criticised this decision has attempted to cause problems for the negotiation of the UK's exit from the EU.

Notably the currency is up, significantly and the markets have followed. The only thing now holding the £ back from appreciating back to pre Brexit levels is the BOE who steadfastly refuse to follow their own guidelines. Even the IMF has had to roll back on the forecasts of UK growth in 2017, although they have gone all mealy mouthed over 2018.

The second that Tory EUphile members tried to derail triggering A50, this election became not only obvious, but necessary.

[Workingman]

During the debate I heard one MP state there was provision to call an early election within the fixed term period.

There is indeed the provision for an election within the fixed term, but only if 2/3 of MPs, 434 of them support it.

No party in living memory has had that number of seats, and any party with such a majority would hardly need to call an election. Atlee had 393 and Thatcher had 397, they were the most recent landslides coming close to 2/3.

The whole point of fixed-term parliaments was to prevent PMs calling an election at the time of their choosing - either when they were at their strongest or the opposition at its weakest. It also prevented them calling an election when they found themselves on a sticky wicket of their own making and leaving the opposition to clean up the mess. That has nearly always been the case.

The point I am making is that when Cameron was caught out in April last year, just ten weeks before the referendum, there were calls for an election. Those calls were denied by this government, the government currently in power, on the grounds that we had fixed-term parliaments and therefore this one had to be seen out through thick or thin. It is now obvious that the thinking was also that Remain would win and Cameron would go down in history as a great leader. That argument, used only one year ago, has now been turned on its head. Suddenly it is fine to go back to parliaments of any length, whenever and for whatever.

The reason it has been passed, the only reason, is that the other parties also smell an opportunity to advance their claims to rule. It is a cynical misuse of process by all parties, not just May and the Tories.

Sorry Suff, you posted as I was composing ... I'll get back.

[Workingman]

The thing about Brexit is that it was a possibility which should have been known about at the last election by the Conservatives if they won - as should the other parties. The Tories also knew that if they won the election they would have to deal with the outcome for a fixed-term. The fact that they thought Leave would lose is their own fault. The fact that they also all appear to have made no provision for a Leave win, any sort of Leave win, is also their own fault, and they should live with both.

A law brought in to prevent what we are currently seeing has not survived one parliament. It was supposedly the best thing for governance and democracy when it was brought in, but it has now been sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

[Suff]

It was a law with a caveat. If 66% of sitting members voted for an election then, legally, that election could happen.

It wasn't 60%, more like 90%. Clearly everyone wanted an election.

Nothing wrong, nothing shady, nothing to complain about. But apparently the democratic process is abhorrent and eats into our time...

[edit]

The act was to stop PM's just calling an election whenever they wanted. Like Blair who wanted an election before seriously bad news cropped up so he went early. It was not a straightjacket from which there was no exit. hence the clause for parliament to vote.

Of course the act is simply a farce. Any government can bring itself down simply by calling a vote of confidence on any issue which is so divisive that it's own party won't support it. Hence an election.

Yes the act will be used to not have an election. All it is really intended for is to block the "convenience" of an election as opposed to the need for one.

[Workingman]

But the act of 2011 was passed without contest because all parties thought that it was the right thing to do. It is the law. Btw, 2/3 is mathematically more precise than 66%, just saying.

But now that it is proving an inconvenience it is being bypassed, and all parties are complicit in overriding it. May instigated it and all the others have fallen in line.

I find it astonishing that people can support her in this. Many of those are the same people who lambaste political parties for not delivering their manifesto promises.

Fixed-term parliaments are the law, and if I am subject to UK laws, as I am, then so should the parliament that makes them.

[Suff]

Actually the law is not being bypassed. It is being used. The law is absolutely not that you can't have an election mid term. The law is that you can't _just_ have an election mid term because you want one, at least 2/3 66.66666(recurring)% of the useless baggage need to agree that.

So it's not even bending the law. Just because it's not popular in certain circles, doesn't change the fact that it IS the law and they are using it. Looking at what May is reported to be doing with the Conservative party manifesto also reiterates how important this election is. All parties must be united and responsible to their voters at this time and an election is the very best way (under our current system), of doing that.

As for 2/3 being more accurate?? True 2/3 is 433 and 1/3 useless baggage and 66% is exactly 429 of them. Making it somewhat imprecise. However to make it exact we'd have to choose some unfortunate wight to be divided into thirds. Not that we haven't all wanted to divide some of our MP's into multiple parts at some time or other....

[cromwell]

Anyhow. I'm not totally convinced that it will be a walkover for the Conservatives.

I expect them to win but maybe not to win as well as they think they will.

The EU referendum was a single issue vote which cut across party lines. Many Labour voters voted Leave, as did many Tories. But we are now in the run up to a General Election and perhaps people will revert to voting tribally once more. Certainly some Labour voters around here are genetically incapable of voting for the Tories, and that includes many who voted for Brexit. Plus the LibDems have already won one by election in a strongly Remain constituency, and it would only be sensible to consider the strong possibility that they will take more.

[Workingman]

Anyhow. I'm not totally convinced that it will be a walkover for the Conservatives.

In my constituency it looks like being a two horse race and even though I want Brexit over and done with I can say with absolute certainty that the Tory horse will not be getting my backing.

[Suff]

I doubt it will be a walkover for the Tories. However if they win even 20 more seats, plus the manifesto changes, it will be a huge win for May and allow her to get on with the job that needs to be done in the knowledge that she can get that job done without undue resistance to change.