Repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act

[johnofgwent]

It is perfectly reasonable for parliament to have the final say on whether a general election occurs early.



Firstly it stops the executive from calling an early election at a time which favours them. For example a time when the executive has made promises which give them a boost in the polls but which will subsequently be broken after the general election has taken place.



Secondly it stops the executive from calling an election with the intention of disolving parliament in order to prevent it from opposing the executive on time dependent issues.



Checks and balances are important.

Running to.the courts funded by a hostile alien who is using your own money to undermine your political voice is NOT a system of checks and balances.



And I remind you the duty of the Prime Minister is to carry out the demand of the sovereign to govern in their name. By preventing the Prime Minister from implementing the command ofvthe sovereign that he pack it in when he can no longer lead that government, they who blocked his dissolution should hang for their treachery against the sovereign.

[Ciaphas]

There are three main advantages to a fixed term parliament (summarised from a UCL Constitution Unit blog):



1. A fixed term parliament doesn't give a tremendous tactical advantage by allowing the incumbent government to call the election when it chooses — it compares to allowing an athlete to fire the starting pistol.



2. The power to determine the date of the election is a source of additional power for a Prime Minister over their colleagues who, If they threaten to rebel, can in turn be threatened with an early election.



3. The expectation with fixed term parliaments is that the parliament will run for the whole term, allowing governments reasonable time to develop and implement their political agenda, legislative programme, and spending plans.



I think the advantages outweigh such disadvantages as the loss of flexibility and possible lame duck governments...

The reality is that anything which is perceived as obstructing Brexit quickly assumes the status as an 'enemy of the people' be it parliament, the judiciary or the fixed-term parliament act.



They'll be complaining about something else next week as the Conservatives Brexit runs into another stumbling block.

[patman post]

There are three main advantages to a fixed term parliament (summarised from a UCL Constitution Unit blog):



1. A fixed term parliament doesn't give a tremendous tactical advantage by allowing the incumbent government to call the election when it chooses — it compares to allowing an athlete to fire the starting pistol.



2. The power to determine the date of the election is a source of additional power for a Prime Minister over their colleagues who, If they threaten to rebel, can in turn be threatened with an early election.



3. The expectation with fixed term parliaments is that the parliament will run for the whole term, allowing governments reasonable time to develop and implement their political agenda, legislative programme, and spending plans.



I think the advantages outweigh such disadvantages as the loss of flexibility and possible lame duck governments...

[Major Sinic]

"It's only when those issues come along with a bunch of mindless wreckers hell bent on avoiding the consequences that we have a problem."



Of course. That's why IMHO we need a way of mitigating it without allowing the executive to hold all the cards.



The current system is wide open to abuse as it is. Only a balanced system will achieve desirable results for all sides... imho.

I agree that the executive (government) should not hold all the cards. However when the Prime Minister of a minority government, makes it quite clear that his government can no longer govern, it is grossly irresponsible for the opposition parties to refuse to have a general election, until certain measures upon which the electorate are prevented from expressing their views have been passed.



The FTPA lies in the face of conventional democratic principles based on a simple majority, rather than a 67% majority which does fly in the face of balance, and is potentially damaging not just for the government of the day, but for parliament and the country.

[Borg Refinery]

"It's only when those issues come along with a bunch of mindless wreckers hell bent on avoiding the consequences that we have a problem."



Of course. That's why IMHO we need a way of mitigating it without allowing the executive to hold all the cards.



The current system is wide open to abuse as it is. Only a balanced system will achieve desirable results for all sides... imho.

[johnofgwent]

If hung parliament's are your problem, then you need to go back to the 1830s and disenfranchise ninety per cent of the current electorate.



There is no way to avoid coalition and minority power in today's Britain which successive governments have filled with foreigners for their own reasons.



Coalitions, hung parliament's and inability to effectively govern are NOT of themselves a problem. It's only when those issues come along with a bunch of mindless wreckers hell bent on avoiding the consequences that we have a problem.



Without that bloody act, Boris would have gone to the people as soon as he was given the top job and no one would have been able to stop him, and we'd be out of the EU. Bonus all the way

[Borg Refinery]

I would not "replace" it with anything. I would go back to the tried and trusted mechanism that served this country well for millennia, which my ancestors had more than a little hand in setting up in the first place.



The Public Office of Her Brittanic Majesty's Prime Minister is there for one reason and one reason only. Under the agreement between Charles the Second and those who now occupied the seats taken by those who had beheaded his father, the constitutional monarchy would appoint from the monarchs trusted advisers one to go to the palace of westminster, there to attempt to form from those elected to that place a government to govern the country in their majesty's name. Until this poisonous piece of statute law was passed, It was the job of the Prime Minister to govern, and resign when government was impossible, and it was the job of opposition to oppose and call to account by demanding the electorate get a chance to bring in a new government.



I view the act as a poisonous cancer that has eaten away at these very pillars on which government of this country has rested fr a very, very long time.



I was not old enough to vote in the stupidity that was Ted Heath's demand to know "who governs Britain" only to be told "not you, pal" but the fact is, within my adult life and for most of my childhood as i read of it from history with one notable exception, just after the Falklands war, united kingdom elections have not been "won" by the party that went on to govern but lost by the party an exasperated or angered electorate have thrown into the gutters.



I recall Sunny Jim Callaghan doing his dreadful sing song Prime Ministerial Broadcast and the winter of discontent inevitable consequences for his "social compact" (was that a sort of facebook powder puff ??) with david steel in 1979. I remember Michael Foot leading Labour to oblivion as the SDP (who I stupidly joined, and quickly left) broke away. I remember Kinnock falling in the sea (a shame he did not jump in it and drown, but the guy was so full of wind he would have been his own airbag)



And in all of these I remember the Prime Minister hanging on for grim death to the bitter end, or occasionally going for it.



What has become most starkly obvious in the past months is the degree to which a bastard dedicated to the glory of the european union has shoehorned this country into a deadlock between a zombie government unable to get its bills past the post, and a bloodthirsty opposition scared shitless to face the electorate for fear of the retribution that is to come.



It must never be allowed to happen again, and I see no particular problem whatsoever in simply restoring the position to that before that odious bastard Clegg was allowed to demand his way as his price for putting Cameron on the Number Ten Throne.

Hehe, words of fire.



A lot of what you write has merit, but in my humble opinion, you're not accounting for the various executive abuses (under both Labour, Tory, old and new Coalition govts) that have occurred.



We really need a system that doesn't permit endless hung parliaments/minority govts and power-by-any-means crap deal cobblery...



...yes yes, I'm sure you'll pointout that such has been happening under the FTPA; you are quite right, so that's why I implied it needs replacing with something better.

[johnofgwent]

What would you replace it with?



It is a bit lacking, but you need an improved alternative that represents the wishes of the the house, respects the executive and does not enable constant elections, hung parliaments, or their opposites which also count as abuse of the system IMHO.

I would not "replace" it with anything. I would go back to the tried and trusted mechanism that served this country well for millennia, which my ancestors had more than a little hand in setting up in the first place.



The Public Office of Her Brittanic Majesty's Prime Minister is there for one reason and one reason only. Under the agreement between Charles the Second and those who now occupied the seats taken by those who had beheaded his father, the constitutional monarchy would appoint from the monarchs trusted advisers one to go to the palace of westminster, there to attempt to form from those elected to that place a government to govern the country in their majesty's name. Until this poisonous piece of statute law was passed, It was the job of the Prime Minister to govern, and resign when government was impossible, and it was the job of opposition to oppose and call to account by demanding the electorate get a chance to bring in a new government.



I view the act as a poisonous cancer that has eaten away at these very pillars on which government of this country has rested fr a very, very long time.



I was not old enough to vote in the stupidity that was Ted Heath's demand to know "who governs Britain" only to be told "not you, pal" but the fact is, within my adult life and for most of my childhood as i read of it from history with one notable exception, just after the Falklands war, united kingdom elections have not been "won" by the party that went on to govern but lost by the party an exasperated or angered electorate have thrown into the gutters.



I recall Sunny Jim Callaghan doing his dreadful sing song Prime Ministerial Broadcast and the winter of discontent inevitable consequences for his "social compact" (was that a sort of facebook powder puff ??) with david steel in 1979. I remember Michael Foot leading Labour to oblivion as the SDP (who I stupidly joined, and quickly left) broke away. I remember Kinnock falling in the sea (a shame he did not jump in it and drown, but the guy was so full of wind he would have been his own airbag)



And in all of these I remember the Prime Minister hanging on for grim death to the bitter end, or occasionally going for it.



What has become most starkly obvious in the past months is the degree to which a bastard dedicated to the glory of the european union has shoehorned this country into a deadlock between a zombie government unable to get its bills past the post, and a bloodthirsty opposition scared shitless to face the electorate for fear of the retribution that is to come.



It must never be allowed to happen again, and I see no particular problem whatsoever in simply restoring the position to that before that odious bastard Clegg was allowed to demand his way as his price for putting Cameron on the Number Ten Throne.

[Borg Refinery]

I agree with the gist of ypur post, but IMHO something more is needed.



You really need to cover every base, every eventuality. The MPs are a sneaky bunch and will find ways around the most watertight systems...many of them are lawyers after all, it requires real thinking this problem.

[Major Sinic]

What would you replace it with?



It is a bit lacking, but you need an improved alternative that represents the wishes of the the house, respects the executive and does not enable constant elections, hung parliaments, or their opposites which also count as abuse of the system IMHO.

A straight forward vote based on a simple majority. O ur electoral process and parliamentary system is already woefully flawed and in desperate need of reform. This appalling piece of legislation does nothing but undermine democracy.

[Major Sinic]

The title says it all.



This poisonous piece of legislation was one of two equal in odiousness demanded by the europhilic bastard Nick Clegg as part of his deal with Cameron to deprive Gordon Brown of a second term of office



It's most immediate effect was to deprive Wales of the chance to castrate Carwyn the Clod. The Welsh were deemed by the English Parliament to be too f**king thick to have a vote for a Tory/Liberal coalition on the same day as another for a Labour/Plaid coalition (or maybe Clegg didn't want to be reminded we'd seen right through the (nope, can't use that word) and exterminated the lying (nope, still can't use it)'s party in 2011 for his U turn in student tuition fees among others)



So in Wales, where the Assembly was supposed to be a fixed FOUR year term, the 2011 election "winners" were told to stay on for a fifth year because the Welsh were too f**king thick to vote for two separate elections on the same day in 2015.



I tried asking the odious corrupt fraudster who was then the Tory AM for the South Wales East region by reason of resigning the Marxist Cottage Burner Party Whip and becoming a Tory but not resigning the seat he got as a Party Regional candidate, not an FPTP constituency one, why we were being deprived of the opportunity to depose him for another 12 months for his accepting a bribe in the form of cushy jobs for his wife and daughter in the Tory party machine in Cardiff but for some reason he refused to answer.



However, recent years have seen the full measure of the impact the Five Year Parliament Act has had. Not least the spectacle of a conspiratorial house and speaker usurping the will of Her Majesty's Government but refusing to accept the inevitable constitutional consequence of facing an irate electorate for their subverting the government of the country.



Truly this act is the work of those who do not have the best interests of this country at heart and it needs must in the interest of good government and restoration of the accountability of parliament to the people be consigned to the dustbin at the earliest possible opportunity.



NEVER AGAIN should Her Majesty's Prime Minister be forced to endure the humiliation of the last couple of months. Frankly, I'm amazed the streets of London are not awash with low level radioactive toxin from Putin taking the opportunity to settle a few more old scores given the degree to which the world has been shown our Government and Her Majesty's Prime Minister in it to be castrated by an fascist rabble unwilling to request the people sanction their treachery.



This Act Must Die.

There is no like or thanks or approval button on this new site. so I can only say HEAR,HEAR!!!!

[Javert]

Well you could argue that it doesn't need repealing, since lo and behold, they suddenly found a way to hold an election based on a simple majority anyway in spite of that act.  As such, the whole act is a waste of paper isn't it?

[Ciaphas]

Then perhaps you would be happy with a lower %age to pass it. At present I believe it is two thirds, that seems far too high.

The requirement of a supermajority ensures that that there is clear support for the general election to take place and makes it unlikely that the executive can unilaterally pass an election unless they have a considerable majority or the support of the wider parliament.



Reducing the % vote requirement shifts the balance of power in favour of the executive making it easier to do what I mentioned previously.

[Borg Refinery]

What would you replace it with?



It is a bit lacking, but you need an improved alternative that represents the wishes of the the house, respects the executive and does not enable constant elections, hung parliaments, or their opposites which also count as abuse of the system IMHO.

[T00ts]

It is perfectly reasonable for parliament to have the final say on whether a general election occurs early.



Firstly it stops the executive from calling an early election at a time which favours them. For example a time when the executive has made promises which give them a boost in the polls but which will subsequently be broken after the general election has taken place.



Secondly it stops the executive from calling an election with the intention of disolving parliament in order to prevent it from opposing the executive on time dependent issues.



Checks and balances are important.

Then perhaps you would be happy with a lower %age to pass it. At present I believe it is two thirds, that seems far too high.