UK General Election 2010

[Nadkor]

But who would really know? I mean, there are plenty of people in the UK who think we don't even have a constitution.

we have a constitution?

Yes.

the magna carta?

No.

Actually we do

Go back and read my post again. Would you like to point out to me where you think I said we didn't have a constitution?

its just uncodified (its like six different documents). The Magna Carta is part of it

It is a great deal more than "six different documents". The three remaining clauses of Magna Carta are a very small part of it.

[Georgism]

Did you read what I quoted? The vote of no-confidence will remain.

I understand, but again, you need to understand this:

Presently, the Prime Minister is the only one with the power to call an election. Hence, when the government loses a vote of no confidence, he can hold a snap election. These proposed changes will give the power to call an election to parliament. As such, under these changes, even if the government loses a vote of no confidence, the Prime Minister will be unable to call new elections. The parliament can call new elections with these changes, but only if the motion is passed with 55% of all MPs. As the Tories have 47% of the MPs, such a motion will never be passed. This will prompt a constitutional crisis.

Basically, the proposed changes will engineer a scenario where the Tories can remain in power even if they lose their majority, as no party would want to introduce a vote of no confidence and trigger a constitutional crisis, undermining the economy.

I understand. Of course the alternative scenario is a PM recieving a vote of no confidence, and then refusing to hold an election.

Which is, of course, unconstitutional at present.

But who would really know? I mean, there are plenty of people in the UK who think we don't even have a constitution.

Handily, included in that will be those whose opinion on the constitution actually matters.

Do voters no longer matter?

When deciding if a government has acted unconstitutionally? Not particularly, no.

Forgive my ignorance on these matters, but who exactly stops the Government acting unconstitutionally apart from itself and the voters that voted it into power?

[Nadkor]

Legally...Parliament (in particular the Lords, since the government would normally command a majority in the Commons (although with the Con-Lib proposal that dynamic would change), which is one reason I'm against a popularly elected upper chamber), the courts (High Court, Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Justice), and, as a last resort, the monarch.

[Georgism]

Legally...Parliament (in particular the Lords, since the government would normally command a majority in the Commons (although with the Con-Lib proposal that dynamic would change), which is one reason I'm against a popularly elected upper chamber), the courts (High Court, Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Justice), and, as a last resort, the monarch.

...Seems easy enough to bypass

[Nadkor]

Well, I'm glad we have your, undoubtedly informed, opinion on the matter.

[Georgism]

Well, I'm glad we have your, undoubtedly informed, opinion on the matter.

Likewise

[Frozopia]

Did you read what I quoted? The vote of no-confidence will remain.

I understand, but again, you need to understand this:

Presently, the Prime Minister is the only one with the power to call an election. Hence, when the government loses a vote of no confidence, he can hold a snap election. These proposed changes will give the power to call an election to parliament. As such, under these changes, even if the government loses a vote of no confidence, the Prime Minister will be unable to call new elections. The parliament can call new elections with these changes, but only if the motion is passed with 55% of all MPs. As the Tories have 47% of the MPs, such a motion will never be passed. This will prompt a constitutional crisis.

Basically, the proposed changes will engineer a scenario where the Tories can remain in power even if they lose their majority, as no party would want to introduce a vote of no confidence and trigger a constitutional crisis, undermining the economy.

I understand. Of course the alternative scenario is a PM recieving a vote of no confidence, and then refusing to hold an election.

Which is, of course, unconstitutional at present.

Ah well I guess it does sound a bit fuzzy then. Still 55% isn't too unreasonable and If things got so bad that they really lost control of 53-54% then no doubt a few conservatives would jump ship to make the rest, so its probably a moot point.

And yet another reason to hate labour:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 127819.ece

What happens when a party tries to buy an election and fails? This.

[Scario]

What Party Won?

[North Suran]

What Party Won?

None of them did.

No party could achieve a parliamentary majority. So the Conservative Party went into a coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party. So it's a Con-Dem coalition government.

[Great Nepal]

What Party Won?

Conservative in normal sense of words.

[South Norwega]

What Party Won?

Mebyon Kernow.

Did not win.

[North Suran]

What Party Won?

Mebyon Kernow.

Did not win.

And thank fuck for that.

[Angleter]

What Party Won?

The:

Capitalist Objectivist National Security Economic Reform Vanguard Against Timid Independent Volunteer Establishments Party.

But not by enough.

[North Suran]

What Party Won?

The:

Capitalist Objectivist National Security Economic Reform Vanguard Against Timid Independent Volunteer Establishments Party.

But not by enough.

Fun with acronyms, indeed.